|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1998). A comment on Lafleur et al.'s re-evaluation of mate-choice copying in guppies. Anim. Behav., 56(2), 513–514.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J. G. (1992). Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc Biol Sci, 249(1325), 179–184.
Abstract: Ever since Fisher (1958) formalized models of sexual selection, female mate choice has been assumed to be a genetically determined trait. Females, however, may also use social cues to select mates. One such cue might be the mate choice of conspecifics. Here we report the first direct evidence that a female's preference for a particular male can in fact be reversed by social cues. In our experiments using the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata), this reversal was mediated by mate-copying opportunities, such that a female (the 'focal' female) is given the opportunity to choose between two males, followed by a period in which she observes a second female (the 'model' female) displaying a preference for the male she herself did not prefer initially. When allowed to choose between the same males a second time, compared with control tests, a significant proportion of focal females reversed their mate choice and copied the preference of the model female. These results provide strong evidence for the role of non-genetic factors in sexual selection and underlie the need for new models of sexual selection that explicitly incorporate both genetic and cultural aspects of mate choice.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, G. J. (1992). Predator inspection, shoaling and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy,Poecilia reticulata. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 34(3), 265–276.
Abstract: Guppies,Poecilia reticulata, living in stream pools in Trinidad, West Indies, approached a potential fish predator (a cichlid fish model) in a tentative, saltatory manner, mainly as singletons or in pairs. Such behavior is referred to as predator inspection behavior. Inspectors approached the trunk and tail of the predator model more frequently, more closely and in larger groups than they approached the predator's head, which is presumably the most dangerous area around the predator. However, guppies were not observed in significantly larger shoals in the stream when the predator model was present. In a stream enclosure, guppies inspected the predator model more frequently when it was stationary compared to when it was moving, and made closer inspections to the posterior regions of the predator than to its head. Therefore, the guppies apparently regarded the predator model as a potential threat and modified their behavior accordingly when inspecting it. Guppies exhibited a lower feeding rate in the presence of the predator, suggesting a trade-off between foraging gains and safety against predation. Our results further suggest that predator inspection behavior may account for some of this reduction in foraging. These findings are discussed in the context of the benefits and costs of predator inspection behavior.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1991). Dynamics of the TIT FOR TAT strategy during predator inspection in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 29(2), 127–132.
Abstract: One well-known solution to the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is the TIT FOR TAT strategy. This strategy has three “characteristics” associated with it. TIT FOR TAT is nice (cooperates on the first move of a game), retaliatory (plays defect against an individual that defected on the prior move), and forgiving (cooperates with an individual which has defected in the past but cooperates in the present). Predator inspection behavior in guppies (Poecilia reticulata) was examined in order to determine whether guppies displayed these three characteristics. Results indicate that while it can be quite difficult to translate the abstract concepts of niceness, retaliation, and forgiveness into measurable behaviors, the data support the hypothesis that guppies display the three characteristics associated with the TIT FOR TAT strategy.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (2002). Cooperation in animals: An evolutionary overview. Biology and Philosophy, 17(4), 459–476.
Abstract: Evolutionary biologists have grappled with the question of the emergenceand maintenance of cooperation since Darwin first listed animal cooperation asapotential problem for his theory of natural selection. Here I review four pathsthat have been delineated in the study of intra-specific cooperation amonganimals. These paths – kinship, reciprocity, byproduct mutualism andgroupselection – serve as a starting point for behavioral ecologistsinterestedstudying the initiation and maintenance of cooperation. After reviewing theempirical and theoretical underpinnings of these paths to cooperation, I touchupon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or reexamine) the role ofphylogeny, punishment and morality in the light of cooperative behavior.
|
|
|
|
Earley, R. L., Tinsley, M., & Dugatkin, L. A. (2003). To see or not to see: does previewing a future opponent affect the contest behavior of green swordtail males (Xiphophorus helleri)? Naturwissenschaften, 90(5), 226–230.
Abstract: Animals assess the fighting ability of conspecifics either by engaging in aggressive interactions or observing contests between others. However, whether individuals assess physical prowess outside the context of aggressive interactions remains unknown. We examined whether male green swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri) extract information about the fighting ability of solitary individuals via observation and whether acquiring such information elicits behavioral modifications. Contests preceded by mutual visual assessment were significantly shorter than fights where only one or neither of the two individuals was informed in advance. Focal animals initiated aggressive behavior more often against larger opponents only after previewing their adversary, indicating that swordtails can extract information about relative body size from watching solitary conspecifics. When a fighting disadvantage is perceived, observers adopt tactics that increase their probability of winning the contest.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J. - G. J. (1993). Female mate copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): age-dependent effects. Behav. Ecol., 4(4), 289–292.
Abstract: Virtually all studies of mate choice to date have assumed that females choose mates independent of one another. Social cues, however, such as the mate choice of conspecifics, may also play an important role in such decisions. Previous work has shown that female guppies of similar age copy each other's choice of mates. Here we examine the effect of relative age on mate choice copying in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, and examine whether younger individuals are more likely to copy the mate choice of older conspecifics than vice versa. Results indicate that younger females copy the mate choice of older females, but older individuals do not appear to be influenced by the mate choice of younger individuals.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (2002). Animal cooperation among unrelated individuals. Naturwissenschaften, 89(12), 533–541.
Abstract: The evolution of cooperation has long been a topic near and dear to the hearts of behavioral and evolutionary ecologists. Cooperative behaviors run the gamut from fairly simple to very complicated and there are a myriad of ways to study cooperation. Here I shall focus on three paths that have been delineated in the study of intraspecific cooperation among unrelated individuals: reciprocity, byproduct mutualism, and group selection. In each case, I attempt to delineate the theory underlying each of these paths and then provide examples from the empirical literature. In addition, I shall briefly touch upon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or re-examine) the role of cognition and phylogeny in the study of cooperative behavior. While empirical and theoretical work has made significant strides in the name of better understanding the evolution and maintenance of cooperative behavior in animals, much work remains for the future. “From the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as the gladiator's show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to fight; whereby the strongest, the swiftest and the cunningest live to fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumb down, as no quarter is given em leader the weakest and the stupidest went to the wall, while the toughest and the shrewdest, those who were best fitted to cope with their circumstances, but not the best in any other way, survived. Life was a continuous free fight, and em leader a war of each against all was the normal state of existence.” (Huxley 1888)
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Alfieri, M. (1991). Guppies and the TIT FOR TAT strategy: preference based on past interaction. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 28(4), 243–246.
Abstract: The evolution of cooperation requires either (a) nonrandom interactions, such that cooperators preferentially interact with other cooperators, or (b) conditional behaviors, such that individuals act cooperatively primarily towards other cooperators. Although these conditions can be met without assuming sophisticated animal cognition, they are more likely to be met if animals can remember individuals with whom they have interacted, associate past interactions with these individuals, and base future behavior on this information. Here we show that guppies (Poecilia reticulata), in the context of predator inspection behavior, can identify and remember (for at least 4 h) the “more cooperative” among two conspecifics and subsequently choose to be near these individuals in future encounters.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., Mesterton-Gibbons, M., & Houston, A. I. (1992). Beyond the prisoner's dilemma: Toward models to discriminate among mechanisms of cooperation in nature. Trends Evol. Ecol., 7, 202–205.
Abstract: The iterated prisoner's dilemma game, or IPD, has now established itself as the orthodox paradigm for theoretical investigations of the evolution of cooperation; but its scope is restricted to reciprocity, which is only one of three categories of cooperation among unrelated individuals. Even within that category, a cooperative encounter has in general three phases, and the IPD has nothing to say about two of them. To distinguish among mechanisms of cooperation in nature, future theoretical work on the evolution of cooperation must distance itself from economics and develop games as a refinement of ethology's comparative approach.
|
|
