Mate choice, operational sex ratio, and social promiscuity in a wild population of the long-snouted seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 160-164

  Naud, Marie José ^a,e,f   Curtis, Janelle M R ^b,c   Woodall, Lucy C ^a,b   Gaspar, Miguel B ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c PACIFIC BIOLOGICAL STATION   (Canada)

^d INSTITUTO PORTUGUÊS DO MAR E DA ATMOSFERA   (Portugal)

^e QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f THE LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Reproductive behavior; Sexual selection; Syngnathidae

Indexed keywords

ASSORTATIVE MATING; FISH; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

HIPPOCAMPINAE; HIPPOCAMPUS (FISH); HIPPOCAMPUS GUTTULATUS; SYNGNATHIDAE; SYNGNATHINAE;

EID: 58149216555     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn128     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bagenal TB. 1978. Aspects of fish fecundity. In: Gerking SD, editor. Ecology of freshwater fish production. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. p. 75-101.
2. Bateson P. 1983. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2001. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol. 12:402-406.
4. Berglund A, Sandvick Widemo M, Rosenqvist G. 2005. Sex-role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behav Ecol. 16:649-655.
5. Curtis JMR. 2007. Validation of a method for estimating realized annual fecundity in a multiple spawner, the long-snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus), using underwater visual census. Fish Bull. 10:327-336.
6. Curtis JMR, Vincent ACJ. 2006. Life history of an unusual marine fish: survival, growth, and movement patterns of Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier 1829. J Fish Biol. 68:707-733. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.00952.x.
7. Dzyuba B, Van Look KJW, Cliffe A, Koldewey HJ, Holt WV. 2006. Effect of parental age and associated size on fecundity, growth and survival in the yellow seahorse Hippocampus kuda. J Exp Biol. 209:3055-3061. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02336.
8. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215-223.
9. Foster SJ, Vincent ACJ. 2004. Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. J Fish Biol. 65:1-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2004.00429.x.
10. Hain TJA, Neff BD. 2007. Multiple paternity and kin recognition mechanisms in a guppy population. Mol Ecol. 16:3938-3946.
11. Jones AG, Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Simmons LW, Avise JC. 1998. Microsatellite evidence for monogamy and sex-biased recombination in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus angustus. Mol Ecol. 7:1497-1505.
12. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC. 2000. Mate quality influences multiple maternity in the sex-role-reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Oikos. 90:321-326.
13. Kokko H, Jennions M. 2003. It takes two to tango. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:103-104.
14. Kokko H, Monaghan P. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol Lett. 4:159-165.
15. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I. 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:404-408.
16. Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Jones AG. 2007. Sexually selected females in the monogamous Western Australian seahorse. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 274:521-525. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3753.
17. Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Jones AG, Nelson WS, Avise JC. 2000. Monogamous pair bonds and mate switching in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus subelongatus. J Evol Biol. 13:882-888.
18. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW. 1999. Variance in female quality, operational sex ratio and male mate choice in a bushcricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 45:245-252.
19. Masonjones HD, Lewis SM. 2000. Differences in potential reproductive rates of male and female seahorses related to courtship roles. Anim Behav. 59:11-20.
20. Owens IPF, Thompson DBA. 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 258:93-99.
21. Parker GA. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 141-166.
22. 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 Biol Sci. 267:2151-2155.
23. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine. p. 136-179.
24. Vincent ACJ. 1994. Seahorses exhibit conventional sex roles in mating competition, despite male pregnancy. Behaviour. 128:135-151.
25. Vincent ACJ. 1995. A role for daily greetings in maintaining seahorse pair bonds. Anim Behav. 49:258-260.
26. Vincent ACJ, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1992. Pipefish and seahorses: are they all sex role reversed? Trends Ecol Evol. 7: 237-241.
27. Vincent ACJ, Giles BG. 2003. Correlates of reproductive success in a wild population of Hippocampus whitei. J Fish Biol. 63:344-355. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00154.x.
28. Vincent ACJ, Marsden AD, Evans KL, Sadler LM. 2004. Temporal and spatial opportunities for polygamy in a monogamous seahorse, Hippocampus whitei. Behaviour. 141:141-156.
29. Vincent ACJ, Sadler LM. 1995. Faithful bonds in wild seahorses, Hippocampus whitei. Anim Behav. 50:1557-1569.
30. Wilson AB, Martin-Smith KB. 2007. Genetic monogamy despite social promiscuity in the pot-bellied seahorse (Hippocampus abdominalis). Mol Ecol. 16:2345-2352. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03243.x.
31. Zajitschek SRK, Evans JP, Brooks R. 2006. Independent effects of familiarity and mating preferences for ornamental traits on mating decisions in guppies. Behav Ecol. 17:911-916.