Does competition allow male mate choosiness in threespine sticklebacks?

American Naturalist

Volumn 173, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 273-277

  Candolin, Ulrika ^a   Salesto, Tiina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Courtship; Intrasexual competition; Mate competition; Mate preferences; Mutual mate choice

Indexed keywords

ASSORTATIVE MATING; COURTSHIP; FISH; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; MATE CHOICE; MUTUALISM; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SPERM COMPETITION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FINLAND; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEX RATIO; SMEGMAMORPHA;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FINLAND; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; SEX RATIO; SMEGMAMORPHA;

GASTEROSTEUS; GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS;

EID: 61849103481     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/595753     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Amundsen, T., and E. Forsgren. 2003. Male preference for colourful females affected by male size in a marine fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54:55-64.
2. Bakker, T. C. M., R. Kunzler, and D. Mazzi. 1999. Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234.
3. Bel-Venner, M. C., S. Dray, D. Allaine, F. Menu, and S. Venner. 2008. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275:77-82.
4. Candolin, U. 1997. Predation risk affects courtship and attractiveness of competing threespine stickleback males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41:81-87.
5. -. 2000a. Increased signalling effort when survival prospects decrease: male-male competition ensures honesty. Animal Behaviour 60:417-422.
6. -. 2000b. Male-male competition ensures honest signaling of male parental ability in the three-spined stickleback. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49:57-61.
7. Candolin, U., and H. R. Voigt. 1998. Predator-induced nest site preference: safe nests allow courtship in sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour 56:1205-1211.
8. -. 2001a. Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation risk? Oikos 95: 225-230.
9. -. 2001b. No effect of a parasite on reproduction in stickleback males: a laboratory artefact? Parasitology 122:457-464.
10. Fawcett, T. W., and R. A. Johnstone. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behavioral Ecology 14:771-779.
11. Foster, S. A. 1994. Evolution of the reproductive behaviour of threespine stickleback. Pages 381-398 in M. A. Bell and S. A. Foster, eds. The evolutionary biology of the threespine stickleback. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. -. 1995. Understanding the evolution of behavior in threespine stickleback: the value of geographic variation. Behaviour 132:1107-1129.
13. Härdling, R., and H. Kokko. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:697-715.
14. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews 72:283-327.
15. Johnstone, R. A., J. D. Reynolds, and J. C. Deutsch. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-1391.
16. 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 B: Biological Sciences 357:319-330.
17. Kokko, H., and P. Monaghan. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecology Letters 4:159-165.
18. 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 B: Biological Sciences 361:319-334.
19. Kraak, S. B. M., and T. C. M. Bakker. 1998. Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Animal Behaviour 56:859-866.
20. Kvarnemo, C., and L. W. Simmons. 1998. Male potential reproductive rate influences mate choice in a bushcricket. Animal Behaviour 55:1499-1506.
21. -. 1999. Variance in female quality, operational sex ratio and male mate choice in a bushcricket. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45:245-252.
22. Lopez, S. 1999. Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males. Animal Behaviour 57:1129-1134.
23. Luttbeg, B., M. C. Towner, A. Wandesforde-Smith, M. Mangel, and S. A. Foster. 2001. State-dependent mate-assessment and mateselection behavior in female threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus, Gasterosteiformes: Gasterosteidae). Ethology 107:545-558.
24. Martel, V., D. Damiens, and G. Boivin. 2008. Male mate choice in Trichogramma turkestanica. Journal of Insect Behavior 21:63-71.
25. 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.
26. Poulin, R. 1994. Mate choice decision by a parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 256:183-187.
27. Rowland, W. J. 1982. Mate choice by male sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Animal Behaviour 30:1093-1098.
28. Rowland, W. J., N. Grindle, R. D. Maclaren, and R. Granquist. 2002. Male preference for a subtle posture cue that signals spawning readiness in female sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour 63:743-748.
29. Servedio, M. R. 2007. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution 61:2772-2789.
30. Servedio, M. R., and R. Lande. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60:674-685.
31. Wearing Wilde, J. 1996. Mate choice and competition in the barklouse Lepinotus patruelis (Psocoptera: Trogiidae): the effect of diet quality and sex ratio. Journal of Insect Behavior 9:599-612.
32. Wong, B. B. M., U. Candolin, and K. Lindström. 2007. Environmental deterioration compromises socially enforced signals of male quality in three-spined sticklebacks. American Naturalist 170:184-189.