An intimidating ornament in a female pipefish

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 54-59

  Berglund, Anders ^a   Rosenqvist, Gunilla ^b  

^a Department of Ecology and Evolution/Animal Ecology ^*  (Sweden)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Mating competition; Ornament; Pipefish; Sex role reversal; Status badge; Syngnathus typhle

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); COPULATION; COURTSHIP; FISH; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

EID: 58149240806     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn114     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allen BJ, Levinton JS. 2007. Costs of bearing a sexually selected ornamental weapon in a fiddler crab. Funct Ecol. 21:154-161.
2. Andersson MB. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Berglund A. 1991. Egg competition in a sex-role reversed pipefish: subdominant females trade reproduction for growth. Evolution. 45:770-774.
4. Berglund A. 1993. Risky sex: male pipefishes mate at random in the presence of a predator. Anim Behav. 46:169-175.
5. Berglund A. 2000. Sex role reversal in a pipefish: female ornaments as amplifying handicaps. Ann Zool Fenn. 37:1-13.
6. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 58:385-399.
7. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1990. Male limitation of female reproductive success in a pipefish: effects of body size differences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 27:129-133.
8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1993. Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:331-336.
9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2001a. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol. 12:402-406.
10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2001b. Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim Behav. 61:345-350.
11. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2003. Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv Study Behav. 32:131-167.
12. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Bernet P. 1997. Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 40:145-150.
13. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Robinson-Wolrath S. 2006. Food or sex - males and females in a sex role reversed pipefish have different interests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:281-287.
14. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986a. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:301-307.
15. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986b. Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 29:209-215.
16. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1988. Multiple matings and paternal brood care in the pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Oikos. 51:184-188.
17. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in two pipefish species. Am Nat. 133:506-516.
18. Berglund A, Widemo MS, Rosenqvist G. 2005. Sex-role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behav Ecol. 16:649-655.
19. Bernet P, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A. 1998. Female-female competition affects female ornamentation in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Behaviour. 135:535-550.
20. Candolin U. 2004. Opposing selection on a sexually dimorphic trait through female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Evolution. 58:1861-1864.
21. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215-223.
22. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav Ecol. 14:771-779.
23. Fiedler K. 1954. Vergleichende Verhaltensstudien an Seenadeln, Schlangennadeln und Seepferdchen (Syngnathidae). Z Tierpsychol. 11: 358-416.
24. Forsgren E. 1997. Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1283-1286.
25. Fuller R, Berglund A. 1996. Behavioral responses of a sex-role reversed pipefish to a gradient of perceived predation risk. Behav Ecol. 7:69-75.
26. Griggio M, Serra L, Licheri D, Monti A, Pilastro A. 2007. Armaments and ornaments in the rock sparrow: a possible dual utility of a carotenoid-based feather signal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:423-433.
27. Härdling R, Kokko H. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res. 7:697-715.
28. Howard RD, Moorman RS, Whiteman HH. 1997. Differential effects of mate competition and mate choice on eastern tiger salamanders. Anim Behav. 53:1345-1356.
29. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC. 1999. The genetic mating system of a sex-role-reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46:357-365.
30. 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.
31. Jones IL, Hunter FM. 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature. 362:238-239.
32. Jones IL, Hunter FM. 1999. Experimental evidence for mutual interand intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim Behav. 57:521-528.
33. Kangas N, Lindström K. 2001. Male interactions and female mate choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Anim Behav. 61: 425-430.
34. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270: 653-664.
35. Lanctot RB, Weatherhead PJ, Kempenaers B, Scribner KT. 1998. Male traits, mating tactics and reproductive success in the buff-breasted sandpiper, Tryngites subruficollis. Anim Behav. 56:419-432.
36. Leitao A, Riebel K. 2003. Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav. 66:161-167.
37. Lopez P, Munoz A, Martin J. 2002. Symmetry, male dominance and female mate preferences in the Iberian rock lizard, Lacerta monticola. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:342-347.
38. Mateos C. 1998. Sexual selection in the ring-necked pheasant: a review. Ethol Ecol Evol. 10:313-332.
39. Moore AJ, Moore PJ. 1999. Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:711-716.
40. Mougeot F, Rez Rodroguez LP, Martinez Padilla J, Leckie F, Redpath SM. 2007. Parasites, testosterone and honest carotenoid-based signalling of health. Funct Ecol. 21:886-898.
41. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E. 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol. 13:498-501.
42. Sih A, Lauer M, Krupa JJ. 2002. Path analysis and the relative importance of male-female conflict, female choice and male-male competition in water striders. Anim Behav. 63:1079-1089.
43. Tarof SA, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA. 2005. Dual functions of a melanin-based ornament in the common yellowthroat. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 272:1121-1127.
44. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A. 1994. Operational sex ratios and behavioural sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 34:435-442.
45. Vincent A, Berglund A, Ahnesjö I. 1995. Reproductive ecology of five pipefish species in one eelgrass meadow. Environ Biol Fishes. 44: 347-361.
46. Wong BBM. 2004. Superior fighters make mediocre fathers in the Pacific blue-eye fish. Anim Behav. 67:583-590.