Mate preference for multiple cues: Interplay between male and nest size in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 696-700

  Lehtonen, Topi K ^a,b   Rintakoski, Simo ^a   Lindström, Kai ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^c ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Multiple cues; Nest size; Pomatoschistus minutus; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; MATE ATTRACTION; MATE CHOICE; MULTIPLE BROODING; PERCIFORM; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION;

KRAEMERIIDAE; POMATOSCHISTUS MINUTUS;

EID: 34547673052     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm032     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alcock J. 2000. Possible causes of variation in territory tenure in a lekking Pompilid wasp (Hemipepsis ustulata) (Hymenoptera). J Insect Behav. 13:439-453.
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
3. Barber I, Nairn D, Huntingford FA. 2001. Nests as ornaments: revealing construction by male sticklebacks. Behav Ecol. 12:390-396.
4. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc. 58:385-399.
5. Bisazza A, Marconato A, Marin G. 1989. Male competition and female choice in Padogobius martensi (Pisces: Gobiidae). Anim Behav. 38:406-413.
6. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev. 78:575-595.
7. Candolin U, Reynolds JD. 2001. Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav Ecol. 12:407-411.
8. Candolin U, Voigt H-R. 1998. Predator-induced nest site preference: safe nests allow courtship in sticklebacks. Anim Behav. 56:1205-1211.
9. Candolin U, Voigt H-R. 2001. Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation susceptibility? Oikos. 95:225-230.
10. Côte IM, Hunte W. 1989. Male and female mate choice in the redlip blenny: why bigger is better. Anim Behav. 38:78-88.
11. Downhower JF, Brown L. 1980. Mate preferences of female mottled sculpins, Cottus bairdi. Anim Behav. 28:728-734.
12. Forsgren E. 1992. Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. Am Nat. 140:1041-1049.
13. Forsgren E. 1997. Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1283-1286.
14. 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.
15. Galvani AP, Coleman RM. 1998. Do parental convict cichlids of different sizes value the same brood number equally? Anim Behav. 56:541-546.
16. Gross MR, Sargent RC. 1985. The evolution of male and female parental care in fishes. Am Zool. 25:807-822.
17. Hansell M. 2000. Bird nests and construction behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Jamieson IG. 1995. Do female fish prefer to spawn in nests with eggs for reasons of mate choice copying or egg survival? Am Nat. 145:824-832.
19. Jennions MD, Møller AP, Petrie M. 2001. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol. 76:3-36.
20. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation inmate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev. 72:283-327.
21. Jones JC, Reynolds JD. 1999. The influence of oxygen stress on female choice for male nest structure in the common goby. Anim Behav. 57:189-196.
22. Kirkpatrick M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. Mate choice rules in animals. Anim Behav. 71:1215-1225.
23. Kodric-Brown A. 1990. Mechanisms of sexual selection: insights from fishes. Ann Zool Fenn. 27:87-100.
24. Kunzler R, Bakker TCM. 2000. Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267:999-1004.
25. Kvarnemo C. 1995. Size-assortative nest choice in the absence of competition in males of the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Environ Biol Fish. 43:233-239.
26. Kvarnemo C, Forsgren E. 2000. The influence of potential reproductive rate and variation in mate quality on male and female choosiness in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 48:378-384.
27. Kvarnemo C, Svensson O, Forsgren E. 1998. Parental behaviour in relation to food availability in the common goby. Anim Behav. 56:1285-1290.
28. Lehtonen T, Lindström K. 2004. Changes in sexual selection resulting from novel habitat use in the sand goby. Oikos. 104:327-335.
29. Lehtonen TK. 2007. Context-dependent mate choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus [dissertation]. Helsinki (Finland): University of Helsinki. p. 77.
30. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2007. Repeatability of mating preferences in the sand goby. Anim Behav. Forthcoming.
31. Lindström K. 1988. Male-male competition for larger nest sites in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Oikos. 53:67-73.
32. Lindström K. 1992a. Female spawning patterns and male mate success in the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Mar Biol. 113:475-480.
33. Lindström K. 1992b. The effect of resource holding potential, nest size and information about resource quality on the outcome of intruder-owner conflicts in the sand goby. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30:53-58.
34. Lindström K, Kangas N. 1996. Egg presence, egg loss, and female mate preferences in the sand goby (Pomatoschistus minutus). Behav Ecol. 7:213-217.
35. Lindström K, Pampoulie C. 2005. Effects of resource holding potential and resource value on tenure at nest sites in sand gobies. Behav Ecol. 16:70-74.
36. Lindström K, Ranta E. 1992. Predation by birds affects population structure in breeding sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus, males. Oikos. 64:527-532.
37. 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.
38. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. 1996. Common mixed models. In: SAS system for mixed models. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc. p. 31-86.
39. Magnhagen C, Kvarnemo L. 1989. Big is better: the importance of size for reproductive success in male Pomatoschistus minutus (Pallas) (Pisces, Gobiidae). J Fish Biol. 35:755-763.
40. Marconato A, Bisazza A, Marin G. 1989. Correlates of male reproductive success in Padogobius martensi (Gobiidae). J Fish Biol. 34:889-899.
41. Oliveira RF, Miranda JA, Carvalho N, Goncalves EJ, Grober MS, Santos RS. 2000. Male mating success in the Azorean rock-pool blenny: the effects of body size, male behaviour and nest characteristics. J Fish Biol. 57:1416-1428.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E. 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol. 13:498-501.
45. Rohwer S. 1978. Parent cannibalism of offspring and egg raiding as a courtship strategy. Am Nat. 112:429-440.
46. 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.