Reconciling sexual selection to species recognition: A process-based model of mating decision

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 242, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 529-538

  Castellano, Sergio ^a   Cermelli, Paolo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Mate recognition; Preference function; Sexual selection; Utility function

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; MATE RECOGNITION; MATING BEHAVIOR; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; MATING; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 33747879625     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andersson M.B. Sexual Selection (1994), Princeton University Press, Princeton
2. Boake C.R.B. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behaviour. Evol. Ecol. 3 (1989) 173-182
3. Boake C.R.B., Deangelis M.P., and Andreadis D.K. Is sexual selection and species recognition a continuum? Mating behavior of the stalk-eyed fly Drosophila heteroneura. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 (1997) 12442-12445
4. Brandt L.S.R., Ludwar B.Ch., and Greenfield M.D. Co-occurrence of preference functions and acceptance thresholds in female choice: mate discrimination in the lesser wax moth. Ethology 111 (2005) 609-625
5. Bush S.L., Gerhardt H.C., and Schul J. Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using no-choice paradigm. Anim. Behav. 63 (2002) 7-14
6. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78 (2003) 575-595
7. Castellano S., and Giacoma C. Stabilizing and directional female choice for male calls in the European green toad. Anim. Behav. 56 (1998) 275-287 10.1016/S0003-3472(98)90784-9
8. Cronin H. The Ant and the Peacock (1992), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
9. Doherty J.A. Phonotaxis in cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus DeGeer: comparisons of choice and no-choice paradigms. J. Comp. Physiol.A (1985) 279-289
10. Enquist M., and Arak A. Neural representation and the evolution of signal form. In: Dukas R. (Ed). Cognitive Ecology (1998), Chicago University Press, Chicago 21-87
11. Fawcett T.W., and Johnstone R.A. Optimal assessment of multiple cues. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 (2003) 1637-1643
12. Gerhardt H.C. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behav. 42 (1991) 615-635
13. Gerhardt H.C. Multiple messages in acoustic signals. Semin. Neurosc. 4 (1992) 391-400
14. Gerhardt H.C., and Huber F. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans (2002), University Chicago press, Chicago
15. Gerhardt H.C., Tanner S.D., Corrigan C.M., and Walton H.C. Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. 11 (2000) 663-669
16. Janetos A.C. Strategies of female choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7 (1980) 107-112
17. Jennions M.D., and Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72 (1997) 283-327
18. Johnstone R.A., and Grafen A. Error-prone signalling. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 248 (1992) 229-233
19. Kodric-Brown A., and Nicoletto P.F. Female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): the interaction between male color and display. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50 (2001) 346-351
20. Künzler R., and Bakker T.C.M. Female preferences for single and combined traits in computer animated stickleback males. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12 (2001) 681-685
21. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 78 (1981) 3721-3725
22. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. State Choice Methods (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
23. Mays, H.L., Hill, G.E., 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 19, 554-559, 336. 10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.018, PII: S0169-5347(04)00215-0.
24. Paterson H.E.H. The recognition concept of species. In: Vrba E. (Ed). Species and Speciation (1985), Transvaal Museum Monograph 4, Pretoria 21-29
25. Pfennig K.S. The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265 (1998) 1743-1748
26. Pfennig K.S. Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav. Ecol. 11 (2000) 220-227
27. Phelps S.M., Rand S.A., and Ryan M.J. A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am. Nat. 167 (2006) 28-42
28. Real L. Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136 (1990) 376-404
29. Reeve H.K. The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. Am. Nat. 133 (1989) 407-435
30. Ritchie M.G. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93 (1996) 14628-14631
31. Ryan M.J. The Túngara Frog (1985), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
32. Ryan M.J., and Rand S.A. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47 (1993) 647-657
33. Ryan M.J., and Rand S.A. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female Túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57 (2003) 2608-2618
34. Scheuber H., Jacot A., and Brinkhof M.W.G. Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 (2004) 2453-2457
35. Switalski Z. General transitivity conditions for fuzzy reciprocal preference matrices. Fuzzy Set Syst. 137 (2003) 85-100 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00434-7
36. Templeton A. Once again, why are there so many species of Drosophila?. Evolution 33 (1979) 513-517
37. Wagner Jr. W.E. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55 (1998) 1029-1042
38. Wagner Jr. W.E., Murray A.M., and Cade W.H. Phenotypic variation in the mating preference of female field crickets. Anim. Behav. 49 (1995) 1269-1281
39. Wilczynski W., Rand A.S., and Ryan M.J. The processing of spectral cues in the call analysis system of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim. Behav. 49 (1995) 911-929