Should females prefer to mate with low-quality males?

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 254, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 561-567

  Cotar, Codina ^a   McNamara, John M ^b   Collins, E J ^b   Houston, Alasdair I ^b  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Parental care; Quality

Indexed keywords

BROOD DESERTION; MATING SUCCESS; NUMERICAL MODEL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION;

ARTICLE; CARE AND CARING; MATING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGENY; REPRODUCTION; REWARD;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PAIR BOND; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 51349113697     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.06.015     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection (1994), Princeton University Press, Princeton
2. Andersson M., and Simmons L.W. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 (2006) 296-302
3. Buchanan K.L., and Catchpole C.K. Female choice in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: multiple cues from song and territory quality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 264 (1997) 521-526
4. Bussiere L.F. A model of the interaction between 'good genes' and direct benefits in courtship-feeding animals: when do males of high genetic quality invest less?. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 357 (2002) 309-317
5. Candolin U., and Reynolds J.D. Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav. Ecol. 12 (2001) 407-411
6. Charnov E.L. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol. 9 (1976) 129-136
7. Clutton-Brock T.H., and Parker G.A. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49 (1995) 1345-1365
8. Cowley D.E., and Atchley W.R. Quantitative genetic models for development, epigenetic selection, and phenotypic evolution. Evolution 46 (1992) 495-518
9. Eshel I., Sansone E., and Jacobs F. A long-term genetic model for the evolution of sexual preference: the theories of Fisher and Zahavi re-examined. J. Math. Biol. 45 (2002) 1-21
10. Eshel I., Volovik I., and Sansone E. On Fisher-Zahavi's handicapped sexy son. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2 (2000) 509-523
11. Forsgren E. Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 264 (1997) 1283-1286
12. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144 (1990) 517-546
13. Hale R.E. Evidence that context-dependent mate choice for parental care mirrors benefits to offspring. Anim. Behav. 75 (2008) 1283-1290
14. Hasselquist D., Bensch S., and von Schantz T. Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381 (1996) 229-232
15. Hernandez M.L., Houston A.I., and McNamara J.M. Male rank and optimal lek size. Behav. Ecol. 10 (1999) 73-79
16. Houston A.I., McNamara J.M., and Hernandez M.L. How does an individual's optimal behaviour depend on its quality? An analysis based on relative ability. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5 (2003) 195-212
17. Hunt J., Bussiere L.F., Jennions M.D., and Brooks R. What is genetic quality?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 329-333
18. Jennions M.D., and Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 72 (1997) 283-327
19. Kokko H. Should advertising parental care be honest?. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 265 (1998) 1871-1878
20. Kokko H. Fisherian and "good genes" benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4 (2001) 322-326
21. Kokko H. Treat 'em mean, keep 'em (sometimes) keen: evolution of female preferences for dominant and coercive males. Evol. Ecol. 19 (2005) 123-135
22. Kokko H., and Jennions M.D. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol. 21 (2008) 919-948
23. Kokko H., and Johnstone R.A. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 357 (2002) 319-330
24. Kokko H., Brooks R., McNamara J.M., and Houston A.I. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 269 (2002) 1331-1340
25. Kokko H., Brooks R., Jennions M.D., and Morley J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 270 (2003) 653-664
26. Kokko H., Jennions M.D., and Brooks R. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37 (2006) 43-66
27. McGhee K.E., Fuller R.C., and Travis J. Male competition and female choice interact to determine mating success in the bluefin killifish. Behav. Ecol. 18 (2007) 822-830
28. Møller A.P., and Thornhill R. Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 55 (1998) 1507-1515
29. Ostlund S., and Ahnesjo I. Female fifteen-spined sticklebacks prefer better fathers. Anim. Behav. 56 (1998) 1177-1183
30. Perrin N. Signalling, mating success and paternal investment in sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus): a theoretical model. Behaviour 132 (1995) 1037-1057
31. Proulx S.R. Can behavioural constraints alter the stability of signalling equilibria?. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 268 (2001) 2307-2313
32. Proulx S.R., Day T., and Rowe L. Older males signal more reliably. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 269 (2002) 2291-2299
33. Qvarnstrom A., and Forsgren E. Should females prefer dominant males?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998) 498-501
34. Robertson I.C., and Roitberg B.D. Duration of paternal care in pine engraver beetles: why do larger males care less?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 43 (1998) 379-386
35. Wong B.B.M. Superior fighters make mediocre fathers in the Pacific blue-eye fish. Anim. Behav. 67 (2004) 583-590
36. Wong B.B.M., and Candolin U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biol. Rev. 80 (2005) 559-571
37. Yasui Y. The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998) 246-250