Sex-role reversal revisited: Choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 649-655

  Berglund, Anders ^a   Widemo, Maria Sandvik ^a   Rosenqvist, Gunilla ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Mate competition; Mutual mate choice; Pipefish; Sex role reversal; Syngnathus typhte

Indexed keywords

INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTATION; SEX ROLE;

SYNGNATHUS; SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

EID: 19344369538     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ari038     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Amundsen T, 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15:149-155.
2. Andersson MB, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Berglund A, 1993. Risky sex: male pipefishes mate at random in the presence of a predator. Anim Behav 46:169-175.
4. Berglund A, 1994. The operational sex ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behav Ecol 5:254-258.
5. Berglund A, 1995. Many mates make male pipefishes choosy. Behavior 132:213-218.
6. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A, 1996. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 58:385-399.
7. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, 1993. Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:331-336.
8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, 2001a. Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim Behav 61:345-350.
9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, 2001b. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol 12:402-406.
10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Bernet P, 1997. Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:145-150.
11. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I, 1986. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:301-307.
12. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I, 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in two pipefish species. Am Nat 133:506-516.
13. Bergstrom CT, Real LA, 2000. Towards a theory of mutual mate choice: lessons from two-sided matching. Evol Ecol Res 2:493-508.
14. Bernet P, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, 1998. Female-female competition affects female ornamentation in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Behavior 135:535-550.
15. Breiehagen T, Slagsvold T, 1988. Male polyterritoriality and female-female aggression in pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 36:604-606.
16. Bro-Jorgensen J, 2002. Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:9290-9293.
17. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA, 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q Rev Biol 67:437-455.
18. Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent A, 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351:58-60.
19. Deutsch JC, Reynolds JD, 1995. Design and sexual selection: the evolution of sex differences in mate choice. In: Perspectives in ethology, vol. 2 (Thompson NS, ed). New York: Plenum Press; 297-323.
20. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J, 2004. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429:551-554.
21. Fuller R, Berglund A, 1996. Behavioral responses of a sex-role reversed pipefish to a gradient of perceived predation risk. Behav Ecol 7:69-75.
22. Gwynne DT, 1990. Testing parental investment and the control of sexual selection in katydids: the operational sex ratio. Am Nat 136:474-484.
23. Johnstone RA, 1997. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:51-59.
24. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC, 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-1391.
25. Jones IL, Hunter FM, 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature 362:238-239.
26. Kempenaers B, 1994. Polygyny in the blue tit: unbalanced sex ratio and female aggression restrict mate choice. Anim Behav 47:943-957.
27. Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ, 1990. The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180-193.
28. Kolm N, 2002. Male size determines reproductive output in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Anim Behav 63:727-733.
29. Kraak SBM, Bakker TCM, 1998. Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav 56:859-866.
30. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I, 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol Evol 11:404-408.
31. Langmore NE, 1998. Functions of duet and solo songs of female birds. Trends Ecol Evol 13:136-140.
32. Langmore NE, Davies NB, 1997. Female dunnocks use vocalizations to compete for males. Anim Behav 53:881-890.
33. Langmore NE, Davies NB, Hatchwell BJ, Hartley IR, 1996. Female song attracts males in the alpine accentor Prunella collaris. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:141-146.
34. Mazzi D, 2004. Parasites make male pipefish careless. J Evol Biol 17:519-527.
35. Noe R, Hammerstein P, 1994. Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:1-11.
36. Olsén KH, Grahn M, Lohn J, Langefors Å, 1998. MHC and kin discrimination in juvenile arctic chair, Salvelinus alpinus. Anim Behav 56:319-327.
37. Owens IPF, Thompson DBA, 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc R Soc Lond B 258:93-99.
38. Parker GA, 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Mate choice (Bateson P, ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 141-166.
39. Parker GA, Simmons LW, 1996. Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:315-321.
40. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E, 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol 13:498-501.
41. Real LA, 1991. Search theory and mate choice. II. Mutual interaction, associative mating, and equilibrium variation in male and female fitness. Am Nat 138:901-917.
42. Reynolds JD, 1996. Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol Evol 11:68-72.
43. Rosenqvist G, Johansson K, 1995. Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim Behav 49:1039-1045.
44. Rowe L, Repasky RR, Palmer AR, 1997. Size-dependent asymmetry: fluctuating asymmetry versus antisymmetry and its relevance to condition-dependent signaling. Evolution 51:1401-1408.
45. Sandvik M, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex role reversed pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2151-2155.
46. Slagsvold T, 1993. Female-female aggression and monogamy in great tits Parus major. Ornis Scand 24:155-158.
47. Trivers RL, 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (Campbell B, ed). Chicago: Aldine; 136-179.
48. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A, 1994. Operational sex ratios and behavioral sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:435-442.
49. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, 1992. Pipefishes and sea-horses: are they all sex role reversed? Trends Ecol Evol 7:237-241.
50. Widemo F, Saether SA, 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26-31.
51. Widemo MS, in press. Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behav Ecol.
52. Yasukawa K, Searcy WA, 1981. Aggression in female red-winged blackbirds: a strategy to ensure male parental investment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:13-17.