Mate choice

Fish Behaviour

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 337-376

  Candolin, Ulrika ^a   Wong, Bob B M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58649124381     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (174)

1. Ahnesjö, I. 1992a. Consequences of male brood care; weight and number of newborn in a sexrole reversed pipefish. Functional Ecology 6: 274-281.
2. Ahnesjö, I. 1992b. Fewer newborn result in superior juveniles in the paternally brooding pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Journal of Fish Biology 41: 53-63.
3. Ahnesjö, I., E. Forsgren and C. Kvarnemo. 2008. Variation in Sexual Selection in Fishes. In: Fish Behaviour, C. Magnhagen, V.A. Braithwaite, E. Forsgren and B.G. Kapoor (eds.). Science Publishers, Enfield, NH, USA, pp. 303-335.
4. Amundsen, T. and E. Forsgren. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 13155-13160.
5. Applebaum, S.L. and A. Cruz. 2000. The role of mate-choice copying and disruption effects in mate preference determination of Limia perugiae (Cyprinodontiformes, Poeciliidae). Ethology 106: 933-944.
6. Arnqvist, G. and L. Rowe. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
7. Bakker, T.C.M. and M. Milinski. 1991. Sequential female choice and the previous male effect in sticklebacks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 205-210.
8. Barber, I., S.A. Arnott, V.A. Braithwaite, J. Andrew and F.A. Huntingford. 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268: 71-76.
9. Basolo, A.L. 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 259: 307-311.
10. Basolo, A.L. and G. Alcaraz. 2003. The turn of the sword: length increases male swimming costs in swordtails. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270: 1631-1636.
11. Berglund, A. 1993. Risky sex: Male pipefish mate at random in the presence of a predator. Animal Behaviour 46: 169-175.
12. Berglund, A. 1994. The operational sex ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behavioral Ecology 5: 254-258.
13. Berglund, A. 1995. Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour 132: 213-218.
14. Berglund, A. and G. Rosenqvist. 2001. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behavioral Ecology 12: 402-406.
15. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist and I. Svensson. 1986a. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 19: 301-307.
16. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist and I. Svensson. 1986b. Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29: 209-215.
17. Boughman, J.W. 2001. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature (London) 411: 944-948.
18. Briggs, S.E., J.G.J. Godin and L.A. Dugatkin. 1996. Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behavioral Ecology 7: 151-157.
19. Brooks, R. 1999. Mate choice copying in guppies: Females avoid the place where they saw courtship. Behaviour 136: 411-421.
20. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature (London) 406: 67-70.
21. Brooks, R. and N. Caithness. 1995. Female choice in a feral guppy population-are there multiple cues. Animal Behaviour 50: 301-307.
22. Candolin, U. 1999. The relationship between signal quality and physical condition: is sexual signalling honest in the three-spined stickleback? Animal Behaviour 58: 1261-1267.
23. Candolin, U. 2000a. Increased signalling effort when survival prospects decrease: Male-male competition ensures honesty. Animal Behaviour 60: 417-422.
24. Candolin, U. 2000b. Male-male competition ensures honest signaling of male parental ability in the three-spined stickleback. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49: 57-61.
25. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 78: 575-595.
26. Candolin, U. 2004. Effects of algae cover on egg acquisition in male three-spined stickleback. Behaviour 141: 1389-1399.
27. Candolin, U. and J.D. Reynolds. 2001. Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behavioral Ecology 12: 407-411.
28. Candolin, U. and J.D. Reynolds. 2002a. Adjustments of ejaculation rates in response to risk of sperm competition in a fish, the bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 1549-1553.
29. Candolin, U. and J.D. Reynolds. 2002b. Why do males tolerate sneakers? Tests with the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 146-152.
30. Candolin, U. and H.R. Voigt. 2001. Correlation between male size and territory quality: Consequence of male competition or predation risk? Oikos 95: 225-230.
31. Candolin, U., T. Salesto and M. Evers. 2007. Changed environmental conditions weaken sexual selection in sticklebacks. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 233-239.
32. Crapon de Caprona, M.D.C. and M.J. Ryan. 1990. Conspecific mate recognition in swordtails, Xiphohorus nigrensis and X. pygmaeus (Poecilidae)-Olfactory and visual cues. Animal Behaviour 39: 290-296.
33. Crowley, P.H., S.E. Travers, M.C. Linton, S.L. Cohn, A. Sih and R.C. Sargent. 1991. Mate density, predation risk, and the seasonal sequence of mate choices: A dynamic game. American Naturalist 137: 567-596.
34. Dosen, L.D. and R. Montgomerie. 2004. Mate preferences by male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55: 266-271.
35. Doutrelant, C. and P.K. McGregor. 2000. Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137: 1655-1669.
36. Dugatkin, L.A. 1992. Sexual selection and imitation-Females copy the mate choice of others. American Naturalist 139: 1384-1389.
37. Dugatkin, L.A. and J.G.J. Godin. 1993. Female mate copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): Age-dependent effects. Behavioral Ecology 4: 289-292.
38. Dugatkin, L.A. and J.G.J. Godin. 1998. Effects of hunger on mate-choice copying in the guppy. Ethology 104: 194-202.
39. Endler, J.A. 1978. A predator’s view of animal color patterns. Evolutionary Biology 11: 319-364.
40. Endler, J.A. 1995. Multiple-trait co-evolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 22-29.
41. Endler, J.A. and A.E. Houde. 1995. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49: 456-468.
42. Engström-öst, J. and U. Candolin. 2007. Human-induced water turbidity alters selection on sexual displays in sticklebacks. Behavioral Ecology 18: 393-398.
43. Evans, J.P. and A.E. Magurran. 1999. Male mating behaviour and sperm production characteristics under varying sperm competition risk in guppies. Animal Behaviour 58: 1001-1006.
44. Evans, J.P., J.L. Kelley, A. Bisazza, E. Finazzo and A. Pilastro. 2004. Sire attractiveness influences offspring performance in guppies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271: 2035-2042.
45. Farr, J.A. and J. Travis. 1986. Fertility Advertisement by Female Sailfin Mollies, Poecilia-Latipinna (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Copeia 1986: 467-472.
46. Fisher, D.O., M.C. Double, S.P. Blomberg, M.D. Jennions and A. Cockburn. 2006. Postmating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature (London) 444: 89-92.
47. Fisher, H.S. and G.G. Rosenthal. 2006a. Female swordtails use chemical cues to select well-fed males. Animal Behaviour 72: 721-725.
48. Fisher, H.S. and G.G. Rosenthal. 2006b. Hungry females show stronger mating preferences. Behavioral Ecology 17: 979-981.
49. Fisher, H.S. and G.G. Rosenthal. 2007. Male swordtails court with an audience in mind. Biology Letters 3: 5-7.
50. Fisher, H.S., B.B.M. Wong and G.G. Rosenthal. 2006. Alteration of the chemical environment disrupts communication in a freshwater fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273: 1187-1193.
51. Forsgren, E. 1992. Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. American Naturalist 140: 1041-1049.
52. Forsgren, E. 1997a. Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 264: 1283-1286.
53. Forsgren, E. 1997b. Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Animal Behaviour 53: 267-276.
54. Forsgren, E., A. Karlsson and C. Kvarnemo. 1996. Female sand gobies gain direct benefits by choosing males with eggs in their nests. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 39: 91-96.
55. Fuller, R.C. 1998. Sperm competition affects male behaviour and sperm output in the rainbow darter. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265: 2365-2371.
56. Gamble, S., A.K. Lindholm, J.A. Endler and R. Brooks. 2003. Environmental variation and the maintenance of polymorphism: The effect of ambient light spectrum on mating behaviour and sexual selection in guppies. Ecology Letters 6: 463-472.
57. Gibson, R.M. and J. Hoglund. 1992. Copying and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 229-232.
58. Godin, J.G.J. and S.E. Briggs. 1996. Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Animal Behaviour 51: 117-130.
59. Godin, J.G.J., E.J.E. Herdman and L.A. Dugatkin. 2005. Social influences on female mate choice in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: Generalized and repeatable trait-copying behaviour. Animal Behaviour 69: 999-1005.
60. Gong, A. 1997. The effects of predator exposure on the female choice of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from a high-predation population. Behaviour 134: 373-389.
61. Gong, A. and R.M. Gibson. 1996. Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Animal Behaviour 52: 1007-1015.
62. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144: 517-546.
63. Grant, J.W.A. and L.D. Green. 1996. Mate copying versus preference for actively courting males by female Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Behavioral Ecology 7: 165-167.
64. Gumm, J.M. and C.R. Gabor. 2005. Asexuals looking for sex: Conflict between species and mate-quality recognition in sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58: 558-565.
65. Hammerstein, P. and G.A. Parker 1987. Sexual selection: games between the sexes. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, J.W. Bradbury and M.B. Andersson (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 119-142.
66. Hankison, S.J. and M.R. Morris. 2003. Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: Female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behavioral Ecology 14: 282-287.
67. Head, M.L. and R. Brooks. 2006. Sexual coercion and the opportunity for sexual selection in guppies. Animal Behaviour 71: 515-522.
68. Heubel, K.U. and I. Schlupp. 2006. Turbidity affects association behaviour in male Poecilia latipinna. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 555-568.
69. Houde, A.E. 1997. Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
70. Howard, R.D., R.S. Martens, S.A. Innis, J.M. Drnevich and J. Hale. 1998. Mate choice and mate competition influence male body size in Japanese medaka. Animal Behaviour 55: 1151-1163.
71. Hubbell, S.P. and L.K. Johnson. 1987. Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice and sexual selection. American Naturalist 130: 91-112.
72. Itzkowitz, M. and T. Koch. 1991. Relationship between damselfish egg loss and brittlestars. Bulletin of Marine Science 48: 164-166.
73. Itzkowitz, M., D.E. Itzkowitz and D. Shelly. 1995. Territory use and disuse in the beaugregory damselfish. Bulletin of Marine Science 57: 653-662.
74. Janetos, A.C. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice-A theoretical analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7: 107-112.
75. Jarvenpaa, M. and K. Lindström. 2004. Water turbidity by algal blooms causes mating system breakdown in a shallow-water fish, the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271: 2361-2365.
76. Jennions, M.D. and M. Petrie. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews 75: 21-64.
77. Jirotkul, M. 1999a. Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Animal Behaviour 58: 287-294.
78. Jirotkul, M. 1999b. Population density influences male-male competition in guppies. Animal Behaviour 58: 1169-1175.
79. Johnson, J.B. and A.L. Basolo. 2003. Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behavioral Ecology 14: 619-625.
80. Johnstone, R.A. and A. Grafen. 1993. Dishonesty and the handicap principle. Animal Behaviour 46: 759-764.
81. Kangas, N. and K. Lindström. 2001. Male interactions and female mate choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Animal Behaviour 61: 425-430.
82. Karino, K., T. Kuwamura, Y. Nakashima and Y. Sakai. 2000. Predation risk and the opportunity for female mate choice in a coral reef fish. Journal of Ethology 18: 109-114.
83. Kawabata, K. 1993. Induction of sexual behavior in male fish (Rhodeus ocellatus ocellatus) by amino acids. Amino Acids 5: 323-327.
84. Kingston, J.J., G.G. Rosenthal and M.J. Ryan. 2003. The role of sexual selection in maintaining a color polymorphism in the pygmy swordtail, Xiphophorus pygmaeus. Animal Behaviour 65: 735-743.
85. Knapp, R.A. 1995. Influence of energy reserves on the expression of a secondary sexual trait in male bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Bulletin of Marine Science 57: 672-681.
86. Knapp, R.A. and J.T. Kovach. 1991. Courtship as an honest indicator of male parental quality in the bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Behavioral Ecology 2: 295-300.
87. Knapp, R. and B.D. Neff. 2008. Alternative Reproductive tactics in Fishes. In: Fish Behaviour, C. Magnhagen, V.A. Braithwaite, E. Forsgren and B.G. Kapoor (eds.). Science Publishers, Enfield, NH, USA, pp. 412-433.
88. Knight, M.E. and G.F. Turner. 2004. Laboratory mating trials indicate incipient speciation by sexual selection among populations of the cichlid fish Pseudotropheus zebra from Lake Malawi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271: 675-680.
89. Kodric-Brown, A. 1992. Male dominance can enhance mating success in guppies. Animal Behaviour 44: 165-167.
90. Kodric-Brown, A. 1993. Female choice of multiple male criteria in guppies: Interacting effects of dominance, coloration and courtship. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32: 415-420.
91. Kokko, H. 1997. Evolutionary stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41: 99-107.
92. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M.D. Jennions and J. Morley. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270: 653-664.
93. Kokko, H. and R.A. Johnstone. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 357: 319-330.
94. Kokko, H. and D.J. Rankin. 2006. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 361: 319-334.
95. Kolm, N. 2004. Female courtship in the Banggai cardinalfish: Honest signals of egg maturity and reproductive output? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 56: 59-64.
96. Kortet, R. and J. Taskinen. 2004. Parasitism, condition and number of front head breeding tubercles in roach (Rutilus rutilus L.). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 13: 119-124.
97. Kraak, S.B.M., T.C.M. Bakker and B. Mundwiler. 1999. Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behavioral Ecology 10: 696-706.
98. Landry, C., D. Garant, P. Duchesne and L. Bernatchez. 2001. ‘Good genes as heterozygosity’: The major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268: 1279-1285.
99. Lindström, K. and C.M. St. Mary. 2008. Parental Care and Sexual Selection. In: Fish Behaviour, C. Magnhagen, V.A. Braithwaite, E. Forsgren and B.G. Kapoor (eds.). Science Publishers, Enfield, NH, USA, pp. 377-409.
100. Lopez, S. 1999. Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males. Animal Behaviour 57: 1129-1134.
101. Luttbeg, B., M.C. Towner, A. Wandesforde-Smith, M. Mangel and S.A. Foster. 2001. Statedependent mate-assessment and mate-selection behavior in female three-spine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus, Gasterosteiformes: Gasterosteidae). Ethology 107: 545-558.
102. MacLaren, R.D. and W.J. Rowland. 2006. Differences in female preference for male body size in Poecilia latipinna using simultaneous versus sequential stimulus presentation designs. Behaviour 143: 273-292.
103. Marcías Garcia, C. and E. Ramirez. 2005. Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature (London) 434: 501-505.
104. Marcías Garcia, C., E. Saborio and C. Berea. 1998. Does male-biased predation lead to male scarcity in viviparous fish? Journal of Fish Biology 53: 104-117.
105. Mazzi, D. 2004. Parasites make male pipefish careless. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 519-527.
106. McKinnon, J.S. and N.R. Liley. 1987. Asymmetric species specificity in responses to female sexual pheromone by males of 2 Species of Trichogaster (Pisces, Belontiidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 1129-1134.
107. McLennan, D.A. and M.J. Ryan. 1997. Responses to conspecific and heterospecific olfactory cues in the swordtail Xiphophorus cortezi. Animal Behaviour 54: 1077-1088.
108. McLennan, D.A. and M.J. Ryan. 1999. Interspecific recognition and discrimination based upon olfactory cues in northern swordtails. Evolution 53: 880-888.
109. Milinski, M. 2001. The economics of sequential mate choice in sticklebacks. In: Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology, L.A. Dugatkin (ed.). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 245-261.
110. Milinski, M. and T.C.M. Bakker. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature (London) 344: 330-333.
111. Milinski, M. and T.C.M. Bakker. 1992. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 250: 229-233.
112. Milinski, M., S. Griffiths, K.M. Wegner, T.B.H. Reusch, A. Haas-Assenbaum and T. Boehm. 2005. Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 4414-4418.
113. Moller, A.P. and M.D. Jennions. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection. Naturwissenschaften 88: 401-415.
114. Neat, F.C., A.C. Taylor and F.A. Huntingford. 1998. Proximate costs of fighting in male cichlid fish: The role of injuries and energy metabolism. Animal Behaviour 55: 875-882.
115. Neff, B.D. 2003. Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature (London) 6933: 716-719.
116. Neff, B.D. and T.E. Pitcher. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: An integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology 14: 19-38.
117. Nordell, S.E. and T.J. Valone. 1998. Mate choice copying as public information. Ecology Letters 1: 74-76.
118. Östlund-Nilsson, S. 2001. Fifteen-spined stickleback (Spinachia spinachia) females prefer males with more secretional threads in their nests: An honest-condition display by males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 50: 263-269.
119. Östlund-Nilsson, S. and G.E. Nilsson. 2000. Free choice by female sticklebacks: Lack of preference for male dominance traits. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1251-1258.
120. Parker, G.A. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Mate Choice, P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141-166.
121. Pelabon, C., Å. A. Borg, J. Bjelvenmark, E. Forsgren, I. Barber and T. Amundsen. 2003. Do male two-spotted gobies prefer large fecund females? Behavioral Ecology 14: 787-792.
122. Petersson, E., T. Järvi, H. Olsén, I. Mayer and M. Hedenskog. 1999. Male-male competition and female choice in brown trout. Animal Behaviour 57: 777-783.
123. Pilastro, A., J.P. Evans, S. Sartorelli and A. Bisazza. 2002a. Male phenotype predicts insemination success in guppies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 1325-1330.
124. Pilastro, A., M. Scaggiante and M.B. Rasotto. 2002b. Individual adjustment of sperm expenditure accords with sperm competition theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 9913-9915.
125. Pilastro, A., M. Simonato, A. Bisazza and J.P. Evans. 2004. Cryptic female preference for colorful males in guppies. Evolution 58: 665-669.
126. Pitcher, T.E., B.D. Neff, F.H. Rodd and L. Rowe. 2003. Multiple mating and sequential mate choice in guppies: Females trade up. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270: 1623-1629.
127. Plath, M., K.U. Heubel, F.G. de Leon and I. Schlupp. 2005. Cave molly females (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae, Teleostei) like well-fed males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58: 144-151.
128. Plenderleith, M., C. van Oosterhout, R.L. Robinson and G.F. Turner. 2005. Female preference for conspecific males based on olfactory cues in a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Biology Letters 1: 411-414.
129. Pocklington, R. and L.M. Dill. 1995. Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Animal Behaviour 49: 1122-1124.
130. Poulin, R. 1994. Mate choice decisions by a parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 256: 183-187.
131. Real, L. 1990. Search theory and mate choice: I. Models of single-sex discrimination. American Naturalist 136: 376-405.
132. Reusch, T.B.H., M.A. Haberli, P.B. Aeschlimann and M. Milinski. 2001. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature (London) 414: 300-302.
133. Reynolds, J.D. 1993. Should attractive individuals court more? Theory and a test. American Naturalist 141: 914-927.
134. Reynolds, J.D. and M.R. Gross. 1992. Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 250: 57-62.
135. Rosenthal, G.G., T.Y. Flores Martinez, F.J. Garcia de Leon and M.J. Ryan. 2001. Shared preferences for male ornaments by predators and females in swordtails. American Naturalist 158: 146-154.
136. Rudolfsen, G., L. Figenschou, I. Folstad, J.T. Nordeide and E. Soreng. 2005. Potential fitness benefits from mate selection in the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 172-179.
137. Ryan, M.J. and W.E. Wagner, Jr. 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 236: 595-597.
138. Sandvik, M., G. Rosenqvist and A. Berglund. 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267: 2151-2155.
139. Sargent, R.C. and J.B. Gebler. 1980. Effects of nest site concealment on hatching success, reproductive success, and paternal behaviour of the three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7: 137-142.
140. Schlupp, I., C. Marler and M.J. Ryan. 1994. Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263: 373-374.
141. Seehausen, O., J.J.M. Alphen and F. Witte. 1997. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277: 1808-1811.
142. Sheldon, B.C. 1994. Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 257: 25-30.
143. Sheldon, B.C. 2000. Differential allocation: Tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 397-402.
144. Skarstein, F., I. Folstad, S. Liljedal and M. Grahn. 2005. MHC and fertilization success in the Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57: 374-380.
145. Shohet, A.J. and P.J. Watt. 2004. Female association preferences based on olfactory cues in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55: 363-369.
146. Sikkel, P.C. 1998. Competitor intrusions and mate-search tactics in a territorial marine fish. Behavioral Ecology 9: 439-444.
147. Simcox, H., N. Colegrave, A. Heenan, C. Howard and V.A. Braithwaite. 2005. Contextdependent male mating preferences for unfamiliar females. Animal Behaviour 70: 1429-1437.
148. Smith, C. and M. Reichard. 2005. Females solicit sneakers to improve fertilization success in the bitterling fish (Rhodeus sericeus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272: 1683-1688.
149. Stohr, S. 1998. Evolution of mate-choice copying: A dynamic model. Animal Behaviour 55: 893-903.
150. Svensson, O., A. Nyman and C. Kvarnemo. 2004. Costly courtship or dishonest display? Intensely displaying sand goby males have lower lipid content. Journal of Fish Biology 64: 1425-1429.
151. Sutherland, W.J. 1985. Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman’s data. Animal Behaviour 33: 1349-1352.
152. Svensson, P.A., C. Pelabon, J.D. Blount, P.F. Surai and T. Amundsen. 2006. Does female nuptial coloration reflect egg carotenoids and clutch quality in the two-spotted goby (Gobiusculus flavescens, Gobiidae)? Functional Ecology 20: 689-698.
153. Taskinen, J. and R. Kortet. 2002. Dead and alive parasites: Sexual ornaments signal resistance in the male fish, Rutilus rutilus. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 919-929.
154. Tomkins, J.L., J. Radwan, J.S. Kotiaho and T. Tregenza. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 323-328.
155. Uehara, T., H. Yokomizo and Y. Iwasa. 2005. Mate-choice copying as Bayesian decision making. American Naturalist 165: 403-410.
156. Warner, R.R. 1988. Traditionality of mating site preferences in a coral reef fish. Nature (London) 335: 719-721.
157. Warner, R.R. and E.T. Schultz. 1992. Sexual selection and male characteristics in the bluehead wrasse, Thalassoma bifasciatum-Mating site acquisition, mating site defense, and female choice. Evolution 46: 1421-1442.
158. Warner, R.R., D.Y. Shapiro, A. Marcanato and C.W. Petersen. 1995. Sexual conflict-Males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilisation benefits to females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 262: 135-139.
159. Wedekind, C. 1992. Detailed information about parasites revealed by sexual ornamentation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 247: 169-174.
160. Wedekind, C., R. Muller and H. Spicher. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 980-986.
161. Wedekind, C., M. Walker, J. Portmann, B. Cenni, R. Muller and T. Binz. 2004. MHC-linked susceptibility to a bacterial infection, but no MHC-linked cryptic female choice in whitefish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 11-18.
162. Werner, N.Y. and A. Lotem. 2003. Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Animal Behaviour 66: 293-298.
163. Werner, N.Y. and A. Lotem. 2006. Experimental evidence for male sequential mate preference in a lekking species. Ethology 112: 657-663.
164. Widemo, M.S. 2006. Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behavioral Ecology 17: 255-259.
165. Wong, B.B.M. 2004a. Superior fighters make mediocre fathers in the Pacific blue-eye fish. Animal Behaviour 67: 583-590.
166. Wong, B.B.M. 2004b. Male competition is disruptive to courtship in the Pacific blue-eye. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 333-341.
167. Wong, B.B.M. and M.D. Jennions. 2003. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B (Supplement), Biology Letters 270: 36-38.
168. Wong, B.B.M. and U. Candolin. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biological Reviews 80: 559-571.
169. Wong, B.B.M., M.D. Jennions and J.S. Keogh. 2004. Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 56: 253-256.
170. Wong, B.B.M., H.S. Fisher and G.G. Rosenthal. 2005. Species recognition by male swordtails via chemical cues. Behavioral Ecology 16: 818-822.
171. Wong, B.B.M., U. Candolin and K. Lindström. 2007. Environmental deterioration compromises socially-enforced signal of male quality in three-spined sticklebacks. American Naturalist 170: 184-189.
172. Wootton, R.J. 1976. The Biology of the Sticklebacks. Academic Press, London.
173. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection-A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-214.
174. Zbinden, M., D. Mazzi, R. Kunzler, C.R. Largiader and T.C.M. Bakker. 2003. Courting virtual rivals increase ejaculate size in sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54: 205-209.