Seasonal plasticity in male mating preferences in sailfin mollies

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1080-1086

  Heubel, Katja U ^a,b   Schlupp, Ingo ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Coexistence; Frequency dependency; Gynogenesis; Mate choice; Poeciliidae; Seasonality; Sex role; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; COEXISTENCE; FREQUENCY DEPENDENCE; MATE CHOICE; SEASONAL VARIATION; SEASONALITY; SEX ROLE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

CYPRINODONTIFORMES; POECILIA FORMOSA; POECILIA LATIPINNA; POECILIIDAE;

EID: 56449105897     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn105     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Aspbury AS, Gabor CR. 2004a. Differential sperm priming by male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): effects of female and male size. Ethology. 110:193-202.
2. Aspbury AS, Gabor CR. 2004b. Discriminating males alter sperm production between species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101:15970-15973.
3. Avise JC, Trexler J, Travis J, Nelson WS. 1991. Poecilia mexicana is the recent female parent of the unisexual fish Poecilia formosa. Evolution. 45:1530-1533.
4. Baird RC. 1968. Aggressive behavior and social organization in Mollienesia latipinna Le Sueur. Tex J Sci. 20:157-176.
5. Ball MA, Parker GA. 2007. Sperm competition games: the risk model can generate higher sperm allocation to virgin females. J Evol Biol. 20:767-779.
6. Balsano JS, Randle EJ, Rasch EM, Monaco PJ. 1985. Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia. Environ Biol Fishes. 12:251-263.
7. Balsano JS, Rasch EM, Monaco PJ. 1989. The evolutionary ecology of Poecilia formosa and its triploid associate. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF, editors. Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. p. 277-298.
8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2001. Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim Behav. 61:345-350.
9. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76:305-339.
10. Brown WH. 1953. Introduced fish species of the Guadeloupe River Basin. Tex J Sci. 5:245-251.
11. Byrne PG, Rice WR. 2006. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 273:917.
12. Clanton W. 1934. An unusual situation in the salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum. Occas Pap Mus Zool Univ Mich. 290:1-14.
13. Cratsley CK, Lewis SM. 2005. Seasonal variation in mate choice of Photinus ignitus fireflies. Ethology. 111:89-100.
14. Darnell RM, Abramoff P. 1968. Distribution of the gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa, with remarks on the evolution of the species. Copeia. 1968:354-361.
15. Dawkins R, Krebs JR. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 205:489-511.
16. Drewry GE, Delco EA, Hubbs C. 1958. Occurence of the Amazon molly Mollienesia formosa at San Marcos, Texas. Tex J Sci. 10:489-490.
17. Dries LA. 2000. The evolutionary persistence of the gynogenetic Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa [PhD thesis]. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
18. Dries LA. 2003. Peering through the looking glass at a sexual parasite: are Amazon mollies red queens? Evolution. 57:1387-1396.
19. Farr JA. 1975. The role of predation in the evolution of social behavior of natural populations of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Evolution. 29:151-158.
20. Forsgren E. 1997. Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Anim Behav. 53:267-276.
21. Gabor C. 1999. Association patterns of Sailfinmollies (Poecilia latipinna): alternative hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46:333-340.
22. Gabor CR, Ryan MJ. 2001. Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male Sailfin mollies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:1063-1070.
23. Godin J-GJ, McDonough HE. 2003. Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol. 14:194-200.
24. Gowaty PA, Steinichen R, Anderson WW. 2003. Indiscriminate females and choosy males: within- and between-species variation in Drosophila. Evolution. 57:2037-2045.
25. Gumm JM, Gabor CR. 2005. Asexuals looking for sex: conflict between species and mate-quality recognition in Sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 58:558-565.
26. Herdman EJE, Kelly CD, Godin JGJ. 2004. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology. 110:97-111.
27. Heubel KU. 2004. Population ecology and sexual preferences in the mating complex of the unisexual Amazon molly Poecilia formosa (GIRARD, 1859). Hamburg (Germany): University of Hamburg. p. 1-137.
28. Heubel KU, Hornhardt K, Ollmann T, Parzefall J, Ryan MJ, Schlupp I. 2008. Geographic variation in female mate-copying in the species complex of a unisexual fish, Poecilia formosa. Behaviour. 145:1041-1064.
29. Heubel KU, Schlupp I. 2006. Turbidity affects association behaviour in male Poecilia latipinna. J Fish Biol. 68:555-568.
30. Hoysak DJ, Godin JGJ. 2007. Repeatability of male mate choice in the mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology. 113:1007-1018.
31. Hubbs C. 1964. Interactions between bisexual fish species and its gynogenetic sexual parasite. Bull Tex Mem Mus. 8:1-72.
32. Hubbs C, Dries LA. 2002. Geographic variation in interbrood interval in Poecilia. In: Lozano-Vilan ML, editor. Libro Jubilar en Honor al Dr. Salvador Contreras Balderas. Monterrey (Mexico): Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Leon. p. 35-41.
33. Hubbs CL, Hubbs LC. 1932. Apparent parthenogenesis in nature in a form of fish of hybrid origin. Science. 76:628-630.
34. 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.
35. Kawecki TJ. 1988. Unisexual/bisexual breeding complexes in Poeciliidae: why do males copulate with unisexual females? Evolution. 42:1018-1023.
36. Kiester AR, Nagylaki T, Shaffer B. 1981. Population dynamics of species with gynogenetic sibling species. Theor Popul Biol. 19:358-369.
37. Kodric-Brown A. 1993. Female choice of multiple male criteria in guppies: interacting effects of dominance, coloration and courtship. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:415-420.
38. Kokko H, Heubel KU, Rankin DJ. 2008. How populations persist when asexuality requires sex: the spatial dynamics of coping with sperm parasites. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 275:817-825.
39. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. 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 B Biol Sci. 357:319-330.
40. Kokko H, Monaghan P. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol Lett. 4:159-165.
41. Kraak SBM, Bakker TCM. 1998. Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav. 56:859-866.
42. Landmann K, Parzefall J, Schlupp I. 1999. A sexual preference in the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. Environ Biol Fishes. 56:325-331.
43. Lima NRW, Kobak CJ, Vrijenhoek RC. 1996. Evolution of sexual mimicry in sperm-dependent all-female forms of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae). J Evol Biol. 9:185-203.
44. McKay FE. 1971. Behavioral aspects of population dynamics in unisexual-bisexual Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Ecology. 52:778-790.
45. Monaco PJ, Rasch EM, Balsano JS. 1978. Cytological evidence for temporal differences during asynchronous ovarian maturation of bisexual and unisexual fishes of genus Poecilia. J Fish Biol. 13:33-44.
46. Monaco PJ, Rasch EM, Balsano JS. 1981. Sperm availability in naturally occurring bisexual-unisexual breeding complexes involving Poecilia mexicana and the gynogenetic teleost, Poecilia formosa. Environ Biol Fishes. 6:159-166.
47. Moore WS, McKay FE. 1971. Coexistence in unisexual-bisexual breeding complexes of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Ecology. 52:791-799.
48. Parzefall J. 1969. Zur vergleichenden Ethologie verschiedener Mollienesia Arten einschliesslich einer Höhlenform von M. sphenops [German]. Behaviour. 33:1-37.
49. Parzefall J. 1973. Attraction and sexual cycle of Poeciliids. In: Schröder JH, editor. Genetics and mutagenesis of fish. Berlin (Germany): Springer. p. 177-183.
50. Pilastro A, Bisazza A. 1999. Insemination efficiency of two alternative male mating tactics in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1887-1891.
51. Plath M, Blum D, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R. 2008. Audience effect alters mating preferences in a livebearing fish, the Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana. Anim Behav. 75:21-29.
52. Plath M, Seggel U, Burmeister H, Heubel KU, Schlupp I. 2006. Choosy males from the underground: male mating preferences in surface- and cave-dwelling Atlantic mollies (Poecilia mexicana). Naturwissenschaften. 93:103-109.
53. Pound N, Gage MJG. 2004. Prudent sperm allocation in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus: a mammalian model of adaptive ejaculate adjustment. Anim Behav. 68:819-823.
54. Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Wilson K. 2003. Soay rams target reproductive activity towards promiscuous females' optimal insemination period. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:2073-2078.
55. Ptacek MB, Travis J. 1997. Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution. 51:1217-1231.
56. Quinn GP, Keough MJ. 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature. 405:344-347.
58. Reinhold K, Kurtz J, Engqvist L. 2002. Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies. J Evol Biol. 15:201-209.
59. Reznick DN, Miles DB. 1989. A review of life history patterns in poeciliid fishes. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF, editors. Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. p. 125-148.
60. Riesch R, Schlupp I, Plath M. 2008. Female sperm limitation in natural populations of a sexual/asexual mating-complex (Poecilia latipinna, P. formosa). Biol Lett. 4:266-269.
61. Ryan MJ, Dries LA, Batra P, Hillis DM. 1996. Male mate preferences in a gynogenetic species complex of Amazon mollies. Anim Behav. 52:1225-1236.
62. Schartl M, Wilde B, Schlupp I, Parzefall J. 1995. Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy. Evolution. 49:827-835.
63. Schlupp I. 2005. The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 36:399-417.
64. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ. 1994. Benefit to male Sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science. 263:373-374.
65. Schlupp I, Nanda I, Döbler M, Lamatsch DK, Epplen JT, Parzefall J, Schmid M, Schartl M. 1998. Dispensable and indispensable genes in an ameiotic fish, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa. Cytogenet Cell Genet. 80:193-198.
66. Schlupp I, Parzefall J, Schartl M. 1991. Male mate choice in mixed bisexual/unisexual breeding complexes of Poecilia (Teleostei: Poeciliidae). Ethology. 88:215-222.
67. Schlupp I, Parzefall J, Schartl M. 2002. Biogeography of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. J Biogeogr. 29:1-6.
68. Schlupp I, Plath M. 2005. Male mate choice and sperm allocation in a sexual/asexual mating complex of Poecilia (Poeciliidae, Teleostei). Biol Lett. 1:169-171.
69. Schlupp I, Ryan MJ. 1996. Mixed-species shoals and the maintenance of a sexual-asexual mating system in mollies. Anim Behav. 52:885-890.
70. Schlüter A, Parzefall J, Schlupp I. 1998. Female preference for symmetrical vertical bars in male Sailfin mollies. Anim Behav. 56:147-153.
71. Schmeller DS, O'Hara R, Kokko H. 2005. Male adaptive stupidity: male mating pattern in hybridogenetic frogs. Evol Ecol Res. 7:1039-1050.
72. Servedio MR, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution. 60:674-685.
73. Simcox H, Colegrave N, Heenan A, Howard C, Braithwaite VA. 2005. Context-dependent male mating preferences for unfamiliar females. Anim Behav. 70:1429-1437.
74. Snelson FF, Wetherington JD, Large HL. 1986. The relationship between interbrood interval and yolk loading in a generalized poeciliid fish, Poecilia latipinna. Copeia. 1986:295-304.
75. Stenseth NC, Kirkendall LR. 1985. On the evolution of pseudogamy. Evolution. 39:294-307.
76. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
77. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2007. Male crickets adjust the viability of their sperm in response to female mating status. Am Nat. 170:190-195.
78. Trexler JC, Travis J, Dinep A. 1997. Variation among populations of the sailfin molly in the rate of concurrent multiple paternity and its implications for mating-system evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 40:297-305.
79. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:313-320.
80. Widemo F, Saether SA. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:26-31.
81. Witte K, Ryan MJ. 2002. Mate choice copying in the Sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna, in the wild. Anim Behav. 63:943-949.
82. Wong BBM, Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG. 2005. Species recognition by male swordtails via chemical cues. Behav Ecol. 16:818-822.
83. Wong BBM, Jennions MD. 2003. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:S36-S38.
84. Zuk M, Kolluru GR. 1998. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol. 73:415-438.