Mate compatibility, parental allocation and fitness consequences of mate choice in the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 61, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1581-1588

  Lehtonen, Topi K ^a   Lindström, Kai ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^b ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Filial cannibalism; Genetic compatibility; Mate choice; Parental allocation; Sand goby

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; CANNIBALISM; FITNESS; HATCHING DATE; MATE CHOICE; PERCIFORM; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SPAWNING;

POMATOSCHISTUS MINUTUS;

EID: 34447135629     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-007-0390-6     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aeschlimann PB, Härbeli MA, Reusch, TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M (2003) Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimise Mhc allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:119-126
2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
3. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8:129-171
4. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J Evol Biol 16:1055-1060
5. Drickamer LC, Gowaty PA, Holmes CM (2000) Free female choice in house mice affects reproductive success and offspring viability and performance. Anim Behav 59:371-378
6. Forsgren E (1992) Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. Am Nat 140:1041-1049
7. Forsgren E (1997a) Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1283-1286
8. Forsgren E (1997b) Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Anim Behav 53:267-276
9. Forsgren E, Karlsson A, Kvarnemo C (1996) Female sand gobies gain direct benefits by choosing males with eggs in their nests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:91-96
10. Healey MC (1971) Gonad development and fecundity of the sand goby, Gobius minutus Pallas. Trans Am Fish Soc 100:520-526
11. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 72:283-327
12. Kangas N (2000) Mechanisms of sexual selection in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
13. Kangas N, Lindström K (2001) Male interactions and female mate choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Anim Behav 61:425-430
14. Kirkpatrick M (1996) Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50:2125-2140
15. Kodric-Brown A (1990) Mechanisms of sexual selection: insights from fishes. Ann Zool Fenn 27:87-100
16. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:653-664
17. Kolm N (2001) Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2229-2234
18. Kraak SBM, Bakker TCM, Mundwiler B (1999) Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behav Ecol 10:696-706
19. Kvarnemo C, Svensson O, Forsgren E (1998) Parental behaviour in relation to food availability in the common goby. Anim Behav 56:1285-1290
20. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K (2007) Repeatability of mating preferences in the sand goby. Anim Behav (in press)
21. Lindström K, St Mary CM, Pampoulie C (2006) Sexual selection for male parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:46-51
22. Lindström K, Wennström C (1994) Expected future reproductive success and paternal behaviour in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus (Pisces, Gobiidae). J Fish Biol 44:469-477
23. Lissåker M, Kvarnemo C, Svensson O (2003) Effects of a low oxygen environment on parental effort and filial cannibalism in the male sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol 14:374-381
24. Mays HL, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26-31
25. Milinski M (2003) The function of mate choice in sticklebacks: optimising Mhc genetics. J Fish Biol 63(Suppl 1):1-16
26. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401-415
27. Okuda N, Ito S, Iwao H (2004) Mate availability and somatic condition affect filial cannibalism in a paternal brooding goby. Behaviour 141:279-296
28. Östlund-Nilsson S (2000) Are nest characters of importance when choosing a male in the fifteen-spined stickleback (Spinachia spinachia). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:229-235
29. Pampoulie C, Lindström K, St Mary CM (2004) Have your cake and eat it too: male sand gobies show more parental care in the presence of female partners. Behav Ecol 15:199-204
30. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat 153:145-164
31. Petfield D, Chenoweth SF, Rundle HD, Blows MW (2005) Genetic variance in female condition predicts indirect genetic variance in male sexual display traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6045-6050
32. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:21-29
33. Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300-302
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. 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
36. Svensson O, Kvarnemo C (2005) The importance of sperm competition risk and nest appearance for male behavior and female choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol 16:1042-1048
37. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013-1027
38. Wedekind C, Müller R, Spicher H (2001) Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J Evol Biol 14:980-986
39. Widemo F, Sæther SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26-31
40. Wong BBM (2004) Superior fighters make mediocre fathers in the Pacific blue-eye fish. Anim Behav 67:583-590
41. Zoran MJ, Ward JA (1983) Parental egg care and fanning activity for the orange chromide, Etroplus maculatus. Environ Biol Fishes 8:301-310