Female mate assessment and choice behavior affect the frequency of alternative male mating tactics

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 239-247

  Luttbeg, Barney ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternative mating tactics; Dynamic game; Mate assessment; Mate choice

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; INTERSEXUAL INTERACTION; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; MATE CHOICE;

EID: 1942475997     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arh002     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA, 1972. Handbook of mathematical functions. New York: Dover Publications.
2. Alatalo RV, Hoglund J, Lundberg A, 1992. Evolution of black grouse leks: female preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behav Ecol 3: 53-59.
3. Alonzo SH, Warner RR, 2000. Female choice, conflict between the sexes and the evolution of male alternative reproductive behaviours. Evol Ecol Res 2:149-170.
4. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
5. Arak A, 1984. Sneaky breeders. In: Producers and scroungers (Barnard CJ, ed).New York: Chapman & Hall; 154-194.
6. Bednekoff PA, 2002. On hotshots and lotteries: are the best males on larger leks better than expected? Behav Ecol 13:580-581.
7. Bisazza A, Vaccari G, Pilastro A, 2001. Female mate choice in a mating system dominated by male sexual coercion. Behav Ecol 12:59-64.
8. Clark CW, Mangel M, 2000. Dynamic state variable models in ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE, 1979. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elephas L.). Anim Behav 27:211-225.
10. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA, 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49:1345-1365.
11. Crespi BJ, 1988. Alternative male mating tactics in a thirps: effects of sex ratio variation and body size. Am Midl Natur 119:83-92.
12. De Fraipoint M, Fitzgerald GJ, Guderley H, 1993. Age-related differences in reproductive tactics in the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav 46:961-968.
13. Dominey WJ, 1984. Alternative mating tactics and evolutionarily stable strategies. Am Zool 24:385-396.
14. Dunbar RIM, 1982. Intraspecific variations in mating strategy. In: Perspectives in ethology (Bateson PPG, Knopfler P, eds). New York: Plenum Press; 385-431.
15. Forsgren E, 1997. Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1283-1286.
16. Gibson RM, Langen T, 1996. How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol 11:468-470.
17. Gross MR, 1982. Sneakers, satellites, and parentals: polymorphic mating strategies in North American sunfishes. Z Tierpsychol 60: 1-26.
18. Gross MR, 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92-98.
19. Henson SA, Warner RR, 1997. Male and female alternative reproductive behaviors in fishes: a new approach using intersexual dynamics. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:571-592.
20. Hoelzer GA, 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav 38:1067-1078.
21. Höglund J, Montegomerie R, Widemo F, 1993. Costs and consequences of variation in the size of ruff leks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32: 31-39.
22. Houston AI, McNamara JM, 1999. Models of adaptive behaviour. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Howard RD, 1978. The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850-871.
24. Hughie DM, Lank DB, 1997. The resident's dilemma: a female choice model for the evolution of alternative mating strategies in lekking male ruffs (Philomachus pugnax). Behav Ecol 8:218-225.
25. Johnstone RA, Earn DJD, 1999. Imperfect female choice and male mating skew on leks of different sizes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45: 277-281.
26. Kokko H, 1997. The lekking game: can female choice explain aggregated male displays? J Theor Biol 187:57-64.
27. Le Bouef BJ, 1972. Sexual behaviour in the northern elephant seal, Mirounga anqustirostris. Behaviour 41:1-26
28. Luttbeg B, 1996. A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behav Ecol, 7:451-460.
29. Luttbeg B, 2002. Assessing the robustness and optimality of alternative decision rules with varying assumptions. Anim Behav 63:805-814.
30. Magnhagen C, 1992. Alternative reproductive behaviour in the common goby, Pomatoschistus microps: an ontogenetic gradient? Anim Behav 44:182-184.
31. Magnhagen C, 1998. Alternative reproductive tactics and courtship in the common goby. J Fish Biol 53:130-137.
32. Price T, Kirkpatrick M, Arnold SJ, 1988. Directional selection and the evolution of breeding date in birds. Science 240:798-799.
33. Real L, 1990. Search theory and mate choice, I: models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136:376-405.
34. Rowe L, Houle D, 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 1415-1421.
35. Ryan MJ, 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surv Ecol Biol 7:157-195.
36. Sullivan MS, 1994. Mate choice as an information gathering process under time constraint: implications for behaviour and signal design. Anim Behav 47:141-151.
37. Taborsky M, 1994. Sneakers, satellites, and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behavior in fish reproduction. Adv Study Behav 23: 1-100.
38. Taborsky M, 2001. The evolution of bourgeois, parasitic, and cooperative reproductive behaviors in fishes. J Heredity 92:100-110.