Skip Navigation



Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on August 18, 2006
Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/arl030
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/6/965    most recent
arl030v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rafferty, N. E.
Right arrow Articles by Boughman, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rafferty, N. E.
Right arrow Articles by Boughman, J. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received January 30, 2006
Revised July 3, 2006
Accepted July 10, 2006

Article

Olfactory mate recognition in a sympatric species pair of three-spined sticklebacks

Nicole E. Rafferty 1 * and Janette Wenrick Boughman 1

1 Department of Zoology, 430 Lincoln Drive, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nicole E. Rafferty, E-mail: nrafferty{at}wisc.edu


  Abstract

Mate recognition is critical to the maintenance of reproductive isolation, and animals use an array of sensory modalities to identify conspecific mates. In particular, olfactory information can be an important component of mate recognition systems. We investigated whether odor is involved in mate recognition in a sympatric benthic and limnetic species pair of three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.), for which visual cues and signals are known to play a role in premating isolation. We allowed gravid females of each species to choose between water scented by a heterospecific male and water scented by a conspecific male. Benthic females preferred the conspecific male stimulus water significantly more often than the heterospecific male stimulus water, whereas limnetic females showed no preference. These species thus differ in their odor and may also differ in their use of olfaction to recognize conspecific mates. These differences are likely a consequence of adaptation to disparate environments. Differences in diet, foraging mode, habitat, and parasite exposure may explain our finding that odor might be an asymmetric isolating mechanism in these sympatric stickleback species.

Keywords: Gasterosteus aculeatus; mate recognition; odor; olfaction; reproductive isolation; three-spined sticklebacks.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
J. Heuschele, M. Mannerla, P. Gienapp, and U. Candolin
Environment-dependent use of mate choice cues in sticklebacks
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2009; 20(6): 1223 - 1227.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
M. Milinski, S. W. Griffiths, T. B. H. Reusch, and T. Boehm
Costly major histocompatibility complex signals produced only by reproductively active males, but not females, must be validated by a 'maleness signal' in three-spined sticklebacks
Proc R Soc B, October 21, 2009; (2009) rspb.2009.1501v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
H. L. Kozak, L. A. Cirino, and M. B. Ptacek
Female mating preferences for male morphological traits used in species and mate recognition in the Mexican sailfin mollies, Poecilia velifera and Poecilia petenensis
Behav. Ecol., January 10, 2008; (2008) arm139v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol LettHome page
J. Heuschele and U. Candolin
An increase in pH boosts olfactory communication in sticklebacks
Biol Lett, August 22, 2007; 3(4): 411 - 413.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.