Hotshots, hot spots, and female preference: Exploring lek formation models with a bower-building cichlid fish

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 609-615

  Young, Kyle A ^a   Genner, Martin J ^b,c   Joyce, Domino A ^d   Haesler, Marcel P ^e  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS LAGOS   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c THE LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bowers; Cichlids; Direct mate choice; Indirect mate choice; Lek formation models

Indexed keywords

CICHLID; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ENCOUNTER RATE; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LEK; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SPERM COMPETITION; TERRITORIALITY;

ANIMALIA; CICHLIDAE;

EID: 66149087389     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp038     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alatalo RV, Hoglund J, Lundberg A, Sutherland WJ. 1992. Evolution of black grouse leks: female preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behav Ecol. 3:53-59.
2. Apollonio M, Festa-Bianchet M, Mari F, Mattioli S, Sarno B. 1992. To lek or not to lek: strategies of male fallow deer. Behav Ecol. 3:25-31.
3. Aspi J, Hoffman AA. 1998. Female encounter rates and fighting costs of males are associated with lek size in Drosophila mycetophaga. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 42:163-169.
4. Balmford A, Albon S, Blakeman S. 1992. Correlates of male mating success and female choice in a lek-breeding antelope. Behav Ecol. 3:112-123.
5. Beehler BM, Foster MS. 1988. Hotshots, hotspots, and female preference in the organization of lek mating systems. Am Nat. 131: 203-219.
6. Bradbury JW. 1981. The evolution of leks. In: Alexander RD, TinkleDW, editors. Natural selection and social behavior. New York: Chiron Press. p. 138-169.
7. Bradbury JW, Gibson RM. 1983. Leks and mate choice. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW, editors. Mate choice. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 107-138.
8. Deutsch JC. 1994. Uganda kob mating success does not increase on larger leks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 34:451-459.
9. Fiske P, Rintamaki PT, Karvonen E. 1998. Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol. 9:328-338.
10. GennerMJ, Young KY,HaeslerMP, Joyce DA. 2008. Indirect mate choice, direct mate choice and species recognition in a bower-building cichlid fish lek. J Evol Biol. 21:1387-1397. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01558.x.
11. Gibson RM, Taylor CE, Jefferson DR. 1990. Lek formation by female choice: a simulation study. Behav Ecol. 1:36-42.
12. Hamilton IM, Haesler MP, Taborsky M. 2006. Predators, reproductive parasites, and the persistence of poor males on leks. Behav Ecol. 17:97-107.
13. Höglund J, Alatalo RV. 1995. Leks. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
14. Höglund J, Widemo F, Sutherland WJ, Nordenfors H. 1998. Ruffs, Philomachus pugnax, and distribution models: can leks be regarded as patches? Oikos. 82:370-376.
15. Hovi M, Alatalo RV, Hoglund J, Lundberg A, Rintamaki PT. 1994. Lek centre attracts black grouse females. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 258:303-305.
16. Isvaran K. 2005. Female grouping best predicts lekking in blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 57:283-294.
17. Isvaran K, St Mary C. 2003. When should males lek? Insights from a dynamic state model. Behav Ecol. 14:876-886.
18. Jiguet F, Bretagnolle V. 2006. Manipulating lek size and composition using decoys: an experimental investigation of lek evolution models. Am Nat. 168:758-768.
19. Jones TM, Quinnell RJ. 2002. Testing predictions for the evolution of lekking in the sandfly, Lutzomyia longipalpis. Anim Behav. 63: 605-612.
20. Kellogg KA, Stauffer JR Jr, McKaye KR. 2000. Characteristics that influence male reproductive success on a lek of Lethrinops c.f. parvidens (Teleosti: Cichlidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 47:164-170.
21. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature. 350:33-38.
22. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ, Lindstrom J, Reynolds JD, Mackenzie A. 1998. Individual mating success, lek stability, and the neglected limitations of statistical power. Anim Behav. 56:755-762.
23. Konings A. 2007. Malawi cichlids in their natural habitat. 4th ed. El Paso (TX): Cichlid Press.
24. Mackenzie A, Reynolds JD, Brown VJ, Sutherland WJ. 1995. Variation in male mating success on leks. Am Nat. 145:633-652.
25. Martin CH, Genner MJ. Forthcoming. A role for male bower size as an intrasexual signal in a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Behaviour.
26. McKaye KR. 1983. Ecology and breeding behavior of a cichlid fish, Cyrtocara eucinostomus, on a large lek in Lake Malawi, Africa. Environ Biol Fishes. 8:81-96.
27. McKaye KR, Louda SM, Stauffer JR Jr. 1990. Bower size and male reproductive success in a cichlid fish lek. Am Nat. 135: 597-613.
28. Parker GA, Sutherland WJ. 1986. Ideal free distribution when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype-limited ideal free models. Anim Behav. 34:1222-1242.
29. Reynolds JD, Gross MR. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox. Am Nat. 136:230-243.
30. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1415-1421.
31. Soether SA, Baglo R, Fiske P, Ekblom R, Höglund J, Kålås JA. 2005. Direct and indirect mate choice on leks. Am Nat. 166:145-157.
32. Shelly TE. 1990. Waiting for mates: variation in female encounter rates within and between leks of Drosophila conformis. Behaviour. 107:34-48.
33. Shelly TE. 2001. Lek size and female visitation in two species of tephritid fruit flies. Anim Behav. 62:33-40.
34. Shorey L. 2002. Mating success on white-bearded manakin (Manacus manacus) leks: male characteristics and relatedness. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:451-457.
35. Stauffer JR Jr, Kellogg KA, McKaye KR. 2005. Experimental evidence of female choice in Lake Malawi cichlids. Copeia. 2005: 657-660.
36. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:323-328.
37. Widemo F. 1998. Competition for females on leks when male competitive abilities differ: empirical test of a model. Behav Ecol. 9: 427-431.
38. Widemo F, Owens IPF. 1995. Male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature. 373:148-151.
39. Wiley RH, Poston J. 1996. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution. 50:1371-1381.
40. Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev. 80:559-571.