Pheromonal Attractions to Particular Males by Female Redback Salamanders (Plethodon Cinereus)

  • Jennifer R. Gillette
  • Sara E. Kolb
  • Joshua A. Smith
  • Robert G. Jaeger

Abstract

An important aspect of the social behavior of a species is the type of mating system that it uses. Interest in mating systems dates back to Darwin (1871), who first recognized the distinction between natural and sexual selection. Mating systems take a variety of forms across taxa, ranging from apparent monogamy (e.g., dik-diks, Madoqua kirkii: Brotherton and Manser, 1997; barn swallows, Hirundo rustica: e.g., Kodric-Brown and Nicoletto,1997) to polygamy (e.g., wood warblers, Phylloscopus sibalatrix: Gyllensten et al., 1990) to promiscuity (many amphibians: e.g., Arnold 1976; Verrell,1989). Mating systems have often been inferred from the social behavior of animals in a given species (e.g., Kodric-Brown and Nicoletto 1997), which can lead to confusion when a species is said to be, for example, “monogamous” Recent advances in genetic techniques have demonstrated that many species of birds formerly thought to be monogamous frequently engage in extra-pair copulations (e.g., Freeman-Gallant,1997).This necessitates distinguishing between an animal’s social mate and its extra-pair mates. To avoid confusion, we shall define “monogamy” in this paper to mean that one male and one female mate exclusively with each other within a given mating season. We shall use the term “social monogamy” following Wickler and Seibt (1983): social monogamy indicates that particular behaviors (excluding copulation) by one individual are preferentially directed toward a specific individual of the opposite sex (the “partner”). In other words, members of a pair direct certain behaviors toward each other and toward no one else, and pair bonds are thus recognizable by this differential behavior.

Keywords

Preferential Behavior Cover Object Unfamiliar Male Wood Warbler Plethodontid Salamander 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, S. J. 1976. Sexual behavior, sexual interference, and sexual defense in the salamanders Ambystoma maculatum,Ambystoma tigrinum, and Plethodon jordani. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 42:247–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, S. J., and L. D. Houck. 1982. Courtship pheromones: evolution by natural and sexual selection. Pp. 173–211. In M. H. Nitecki (Ed.), Biochemical Aspects of Evolutionary Biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  3. Beer, C. G. 1970. Individual recognition of voice in the social behavior of birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior 3:27–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brotherton, P. N. M., and M. B. Manser. 1997. Female dispersion and the evolution of monogamy in the dikdik. Animal Behaviour 54:1413–1424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London, U.K. [As reprinted, 1872, by D. Appleton and Company, New York, New York, U.S.A.]Google Scholar
  6. Dawley, E. M., and A. H. Bass. 1989. Organization of the vomeronasal organ in a plethodontid salamander. Journal of Morphology 198:243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falls, J. B. 1982. Individual recognition by sound in birds. Pp. 237–278. In D. E. Kroodsma and E. H. Miller (Eds.), Acoustic Communication in Birds, Vol. 2. Song Learning and Its Consequences. Academic Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  8. de Fanis, E., and G. Jones. 1995. The role of odour in the discrimination of conspecifics by pipistrelle bats. Animal Behaviour 49:835–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman-Gallant, C. R. 1997. Extra-pair paternity in monogamous and polygynous savannah sparrows, Passerculus sandwichensis. Animal Behaviour 53:397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gergits, W. E, and R. G. Jaeger. 1990. Field observations of the behavior of the red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus): courtship and agonistic interactions. Journal of Herpetology 24:93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillette, J. R. 1998. Intersexual Association Preferences in Plethodon cinereus, the Red-backed Salamander.M.S. Thesis, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  12. Guffey, C. A., J. G. MaKinster, and R. G. Jaeger. 1998. Familiarity affects interactions between potentially courting territorial salamanders. Copeia 1998:205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gyllensten, U. B., S. Jakobsson, and H. Temrin. 1990. No evidence for illegitimate young in monogamous and polygynous warblers. Nature 343:168–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpin, Z. T. 1980. Individual odors and individual recognition: review and commentary. Biological Behavior 5:233–248.Google Scholar
  15. Home, E. A., and R. G. Jaeger. 1988. Territorial pheromones of female red-backed salamanders. Ethology 78:143–152.Google Scholar
  16. Houck, L. D. 1986. The evolution of salamander courtship pheromones. Pp. 173–190. In D. Duvall, D. Müller-Schwarze, and R. M. Silverstein (Eds.), Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 4. Plenum Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  17. Houck, L. D., and N. L. Reagan. 1990. Male courtship pheromones increase female receptivity in a plethodontid salamander. Animal Behaviour 39:729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaeger, R. G. 1981. Dear enemy recognition and the costs of aggression between salamanders. American Naturalist 117:962–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaeger, R. G. 1984. Agonistic behavior of the red-backed salamander. Copeia 1984:309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaeger, R. G. 1986. Pheromonal markers as territorial advertisement by terrestrial salamanders. Pp. 191–203. In D. Duvall, D. Müller-Schwarze, and R. M. Silverstein (Eds.), Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 4. Plenum Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  21. Jaeger, R. G., and D. C. Forester. 1993. Social behavior of plethodontid salamanders. Herpetologica 49:163–175.Google Scholar
  22. Jaeger, R. G., and W. E Gergits. 1979. Intra-and interspecific communication in salamanders through chemical signals on the substrate. Animal Behaviour 27:150–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaeger, R. G., and J. K. Schwarz. 1991. Gradational threat postures by the red-backed salamander. Journal of Herpetology 25:112–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaeger, R. G., and S. E. Wise. 1991. A reexamination of the male salamander “sexy faeces hypothesis.” Journal of Herpetology 25:370–373.Google Scholar
  25. Jaeger, R. G., J. Goy, M. Tarver, and C. Marquez. 1986. Salamander territoriality: pheromonal markers as advertisement by males. Animal Behaviour 34:860–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaeger, R. G., M. G. Peterson, and J. R. Gillette. 2000. A model of alternative mating strategies in the redback salamander, Plethodon cinereus. Pp. 441–450. In R. C. Bruce, R. G. Jaeger, and L. D. Houck (Eds.), The Biology of Plethodontid Salamanders. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  27. Jaeger, R. G., J. A. Wicknick, M. R. Griffis, and C. D. Anthony. 1995. Socioecology of a terrestrial salamander: juveniles enter adult territories during stressful foraging periods. Ecology 76:533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston, R. E., and P. Jernigan. 1994. Golden hamsters recognize individuals, not just individual scents.Animal Behaviour 48:129–136.Google Scholar
  29. Kendrick, K. M., K. Atkins, M. R. Hinton, K. D. Broad, C. Fabre-Nys, and B. Keverne. 1995. Facial and vocal discrimination in sheep. Animal Behaviour 49:1665–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kodric-Brown, A., and P. F. Nicoletto. 1997. Repeatability of female choice in the guppy: response to live and videotaped males. Animal Behaviour 54:369–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lang, C. D. 1998. Defense of Territories by Male-Female Pairs in the Red-backed Salamander (Plethodon cinereus). M.S. Thesis, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  32. Madison, D. M. 1975. Intraspecific odor preferences between salamanders of the same sex: dependence on season and proximity of residence. Canadian Journal of Zoology 53:1356–1361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malacarne, G., and C. Giacoma. 1986. Chemical signals in European newt courtship. Bollettino di Zoologia 53:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathis, A. 1989. Do seasonal spatial distributions in a terrestrial salamander reflect reproductive behavior or territoriality? Copeia 1989:788–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mathis, A. 1990. Territorial salamanders assess sexual and competitive information using chemical signals. Animal Behaviour 40:953–962.Google Scholar
  36. Mathis, A. 1991. Territories of male and female terrestrial salamanders: costs, benefits, and intersexual spatial associations. Oecologia (Berlin) 86:433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGavin, M. 1978. Recognition of conspecific odors by the salamander Plethodon cinereus. Copeia 1978:356–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller, A. P. 1994. Sexual Selection and the Barn Swallow. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  39. Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and G. A. Whitmore. 1993. Applied Statistics, 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  40. Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson, B. C. 1996. Vocal mate recognition in a monogamous, flock-forming bird, the silvereye, Zosterops lateralis. Animal Behaviour 51:303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenfeld, S. A., and G. W. Van Hoesen. 1979. Face recognition in the rhesus monkey. Neuropsychologia 17:503–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SAS Institute Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 6. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, U.S.A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sever, D. M. 1997. Sperm storage in the spermatheca of the red-back salamander, Plethodon cinereus (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). Journal of Morphology 234:131–146.Google Scholar
  45. Simon, G. S., and D. M. Madison. 1984. Individual recognition in salamanders: cloacal odours. Animal Behaviour 32:1017–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tristram, D. A. 1977. Intraspecific olfactory communication in the terrestrial salamander Plethodon cinereus. Copeia 1977:597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verrell, P. A. 1989. The sexual strategies of natural populations of newts and salamanders. Herpetologica 45:265–282.Google Scholar
  48. Walls, S. C., A. Mathis, R. G. Jaeger, and W. F. Gergits. 1989. Male salamanders with high-quality diets have faeces attractive to females. Animal Behaviour 38:546–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wickler, W., and U. Seibt. 1983. Monogamy: an ambiguous concept. Pp. 33–50. In P. Bateson (Ed.), Mate Choice. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  50. Wooller, R. D. 1978. Individual vocal recognition in the kittiwake gull, Rissa tridactyla (L.). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 48:68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer R. Gillette
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sara E. Kolb
    • 1
  • Joshua A. Smith
    • 1
  • Robert G. Jaeger
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Southwestern LouisianaLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Mountain Lake Biological StationUniversity of VirginiaPembrokeUSA

Personalised recommendations