I remember you: female Siamese fighting fish recognise prior social partners
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Teresa L. Dzieweczynski in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Nicole E. Greaney in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Kelley B. Portrais in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Megan A. Stevens in
Current site
Google Scholar
Recognising social partners allows individuals to establish social networks with one another, informs mating decisions, and decreases energy expenditure. Studies rarely examine if females have this ability outside of mate choice. Additionally, it is unknown if familiarity differs when females encounter females versus males. Female Siamese fighting fish were placed into one of six treatment groups that differed based on the sex of the interactant (female or male) and experience (familiar, unfamiliar or no previous exposure). In both female–female and female–male interactions, less behaviour was performed towards familiar individuals. However, the degree to which familiarity had an effect differed depending on the sex of the interactant and the behaviour measured. Familiarity may serve an important function if it increases an individual’s ability to remember the outcome of prior encounters and use this information in later encounters with the same individual. To fully understand social dynamics, both sexes must be examined.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Alyan S. (2010). Male Betta splendens are equally aggressive toward neighbours and strangers. — J. Ichthyol. 50: 1066-1069.
-
Barber I., Ruxton G.D. (2000). The importance of stable schooling: do familiar sticklebacks stick together? — Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 267: 151-155.
-
Bee M.A. (2006). Individual recognition in animal species. — In: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. ( Brown K., ed.). Elsevier, Oxford, p. 617-626.
-
Beery A.K., Zucker I. (2011). Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. — Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35: 565-572.
-
Braddock J.C., Braddock Z.I. (1955). Aggressive behavior among females of the Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. — Physiol. Zool. 28: 152-172.
-
Bronstein P.M. (1984). Agonistic and reproductive interactions in Betta splendens. — J. Comp. Psychol. 98: 421-431.
-
Brunton D.H., Evans B., Cope T., Ji W. (2008). A test of the dear enemy hypothesis in female New Zealand bellbirds (Anthornis melanura): female neighbors as threats. — Behav. Ecol. 19: 791-798.
-
Bull C.M., Griffin C.L., Lanham E.J., Johnston G.R. (2000). Recognition of pheromones from group members in a gregarious lizard, Egernia stokesii. — J. Herpetol. 34: 92-99.
-
Cain N.W., Anderson R., Stein L., Jessen C. (1980). Effects of prior social experience on agnostic responding by Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). — Anim. Learn. Behav. 8: 491-496.
-
Chivers D.P., Brown G.E., Smith R.J.F. (1995). Familiarity and shoal cohesion in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas): implications for antipredator behavior. — Can. J. Zool. 73: 955-960.
-
Darden S.K., Watts L. (2012). Male sexual harassment alters female social behavior towards other females. — Biol. Lett. 8: 186-188.
-
Darden S.K., James R., Ramnarine I.W., Croft D.P. (2009). Social implications of the battle of the sexes: sexual harassment disrupts female sociality and social recognition. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 276: 2651-2656.
-
Doutrelant C., McGregor P. (2000). Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. — Behaviour 137: 1655-1668.
-
Dugatkin L.A., Earley R.L. (2004). Individual recognition, dominance hierarchies and winner and loser effects. — Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 271: 1537-1540.
-
Dzieweczynki T.L., Perazio C.E. (2012). I know you: familiarity with an audience influences male–male interactions in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66: 1277-1284.
-
Dzieweczynski T.L., Gill C.E., Perazio C.E. (2012). Opponent familiarity influences the audience effect in male–male interactions in Siamese fighting fish. — Anim. Behav. 83: 1219-1224.
-
Eakley A.L., Houde A.E. (2004). Possible role of female discrimination against ‘redundant’ males in the evolution of color pattern polymorphism in guppies. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 273: 713-717.
-
Fisher J. (1954). Evolution and bird sociality. — In: Evolution as a process ( Huxley J., Hardy A.C., Ford E.B., eds). Allen & Unwin, London, p. 71-83.
-
Frère C.H., Krützen M., Mann J., Connor R.C., Bejder L., Sherwin W.B. (2010). Social and genetic interactions drive fitness variation in a free-living dolphin population. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 13850-13853.
-
Frigerio D., Weiss B., Kotrschal K. (2001). Spatial proximity among adult siblings in graylag geese (Anser anser): evidence for female bonding? — Acta Ethol. 3: 121-125.
-
Goldstein S.R. (1975). Observations on the establishment of a stable community of adult male and female Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). — Anim. Behav. 23: 179-185.
-
Granroth-Wilding H.M.V., Magurran A.E. (2013). Asymmetry in pay-off predicts how familiar individuals respond to one another. — Biol. Lett. 9: 20130025.
-
Griffiths S.W., Brockmark S., Höjesjö J., Johnsson J.I. (2004). Coping with divided attention: the advantage of familiarity. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 271: 695-699.
-
Hughes K.A., Du L., Rodd F.H., Reznick D.N. (1999). Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. — Anim. Behav. 58: 907-916.
-
Jaroensutasinee M., Jaroensutasinee K. (2003). Type of intruder and reproductive phase influence male territorial defense in wild-caught Siamese fighting fish. — Behav. Proc. 64: 23-29.
-
Johnstone R.A. (1997). Recognition and the evolution of distinctive signatures: when does it pay to reveal identity? — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 264: 1547-1553.
-
Kelley J.L., Graves J.A., Magurran A.E. (1999). Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. — Nature 401: 661-662.
-
Kohn G.M., Meredith G.R., Magdaleno F.R., King A.P., West M.J. (2015). Sex differences in familiarity preferences within fission–fusion brown-headed cowbird, Molothrus ater, flocks. — Anim. Behav. 106: 137-143.
-
Lachlan R.F., Crooks L., Laland K.M. (1998). Who follow whom? Shoaling preferences and social learning of foraging information in guppies. — Anim. Behav. 56: 181-190.
-
Mäenpää M.I., Andrews C.P., Collette D., Leigh D., Smiseth P.T. (2015). Burying beetle larvae discriminate between individual parents and between some classes of adults. — Ethology 121: 395-402.
-
Magurran A.E., Ramnarine I.W. (2004). Learned mate recognition and reproductive isolation in guppies. — Anim. Behav. 67: 1077-1082.
-
Marler P. (1976). On animal aggression: the roles of strangeness and familiarity. — Am. Psychol. 31: 239-246.
-
Matos R.J., Schlupp I. (2005). Performing in front of an audience: signalers and the social environment. — In: Animal communication networks ( McGregor P.K., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 63-83.
-
Matos R.J., Peake T.M., McGregor P.K. (2003). Timing of presentation of an audience: aggressive priming and audience effects in male displays of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). — Behav. Proc. 63: 53-61.
-
McGregor P.K. (2005). Animal communication networks. — Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-
Metcalfe N.B., Thomson B.C. (1995). Fish recognize and prefer to shoal with poor competitors. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 259: 207-210.
-
Oliveira R.F., McGregor P.K., Latruffe K. (1998). Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecifics interactions. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 265: 1045-1049.
-
Porter R., Bon R., Dèsirè L. (2001). The role of familiarity in the development of social recognition by lambs. — Behaviour 138: 207-219.
-
Reader S.M., Kendal J.R., Laland K.N. (2003). Social learning of foraging sites and escape routes in wild Trinidadian guppies. — Anim. Behav. 66: 729-739.
-
Schnell A.K., Smith C.L., Hanlon R.T., Harcourt R.T. (2015). Female receptivity, mating history, and familiarity influence the mating behavior of cuttlefish. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69: 283-292.
-
Sievers C., Magurran A.E. (2011). Context dependent acquisition of familiarity recognition in Trinidadian guppies. — Behaviour 148: 843-855.
-
Simpson M.J.A. (1968). The display of the Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. — Anim. Behav. Monogr. 1: 1-71.
-
Smith C.L., Taubert J., Weldon K., Evans C.S. (2016). Individual recognition based on communication behavior of male fowl. — Behav. Proc. 124: 101-105.
-
Snekser J., Mcrobert S., Clotfelter E.D. (2006). Social partner preferences of male and female fighting fish (Betta splendens). — Behav. Proc. 72: 38-41.
-
Sundaresan S.R., Fischhoff I.R., Rubenstein D.I. (2007). Male harassment influences female movements and associations in grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi). — Behav. Ecol. 18: 860-865.
-
Temeles E.J. (1994). The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they ‘dear enemies’? — Anim. Behav. 47: 339-350.
-
Tricarico E., Borrelli L., Gheradi F., Fiorito G. (2011). I know my neighbor: individual recognition in Octopus vulgaris. — PLoS One 6: e18710.
-
Trivers R. (1971). Evolution of reciprocal altruism. — Q. Rev. Biol. 46: 35-57.
-
van Doorn G.S., Hengeveld G.M., Weissing F.J. (2003). The evolution of social dominance 1: two-player models. — Behaviour 140: 1305-1332.
-
Ward A.J.W., Hart P.J.B. (2003). The effects of kin and familiarity on interactions between fish. — J. Fish Biol. 4: 348-358.
-
Webster M.M., Hart P.J.B. (2007). Prior association reduces kleptoparasitic prey competition in shoals of three-spined sticklebacks. — Anim. Behav. 74: 253-258.
-
Weckerly F.W., Ricca M.A., Meyer K.P. (2001). Sexual segregation in Roosevelt elk: cropping rates and aggression in mixed-sex groups. — J. Mammal. 82: 825-835.
-
Wiley R., Steadman L., Chadwich L., Wollerman L. (1999). Social inertia in white-throated sparrows results from recognition of opponents. — Anim. Behav. 57: 453-463.
-
Yasuda C.I., Matsuo K., Hasaba Y., Wada S. (2014). Hermit crab, Pagurus middendorffii, males avoid the escalation of contests with familiar winners. — Anim. Behav. 96: 49-57.
-
Ydenberg R.C., Giraldeau L.A., Falls J.B. (1988). Neighbors, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attraction. — Anim. Behav. 36: 343-347.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 532 | 94 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 247 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 64 | 5 | 0 |
I remember you: female Siamese fighting fish recognise prior social partners
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Teresa L. Dzieweczynski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nicole E. Greaney in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kelley B. Portrais in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Megan A. Stevens in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Recognising social partners allows individuals to establish social networks with one another, informs mating decisions, and decreases energy expenditure. Studies rarely examine if females have this ability outside of mate choice. Additionally, it is unknown if familiarity differs when females encounter females versus males. Female Siamese fighting fish were placed into one of six treatment groups that differed based on the sex of the interactant (female or male) and experience (familiar, unfamiliar or no previous exposure). In both female–female and female–male interactions, less behaviour was performed towards familiar individuals. However, the degree to which familiarity had an effect differed depending on the sex of the interactant and the behaviour measured. Familiarity may serve an important function if it increases an individual’s ability to remember the outcome of prior encounters and use this information in later encounters with the same individual. To fully understand social dynamics, both sexes must be examined.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 532 | 94 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 247 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 64 | 5 | 0 |
