Mapping individual variation in male mating preference space: Multiple choice in a color polymorphic cichlid fish

Evolution

Volumn 63, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 2372-2388

  Pierotti, Michele E R ^a,b,e   Martín Fernández, Josep A ^c   Seehausen, Ole ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GIRONA   (Spain)

^d SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^e EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cichlid; Compositional data; Male preference; Mate choice; Polymorphism; Sex ratio

Indexed keywords

CICHLID; COLOR MORPH; MATE CHOICE; POLYMORPHISM; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CICHLID; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGMENTATION;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CICHLIDS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLOR; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; PHENOTYPE; PIGMENTATION; POLYMORPHISM, GENETIC;

AFRICA; EAST AFRICAN LAKES; LAKE VICTORIA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA;

CICHLIDAE; NEOCHROMIS OMNICAERULEUS;

EID: 69249195779     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00716.x     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aitchison, J. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data. Chapman and Hall, London.
2. Aitchison, J. 1999. Logratios and natural laws in compositional data analysis. Math. Geol. 31 : 563 580.
3. Aitchison, J., C. Barceló-Vidal, J. A. Martín- Fernández, and V. Pawlowsky-Glahn. 2000. Logratio analysis and compositional distance. Math. Geol. 32 : 271 275.
4. Alonzo, S. H., and B. Sinervo. 2001. Mate choice games, context-dependent good genes, and genetic cycles in the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49 : 176 186.
5. Amundsen, T., and E. Forsgren. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98 : 13155 13160.
6. Amundsen, T., E. Forsgren, and L. T.T Hansen. 1997. On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264 : 1579 1586.
7. Arnegard, M. E., and A. S. Kondrashov. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection alone is unlikely. Evolution 58 : 222 237.
8. Baerends, G. P., and J. M. Baerends-van Roon. 1950. An introduction to the study of the ethology of cichlid fishes. Behav. Suppl. 1 : 1 242.
9. Bakker, T. C. M., and A. Pomiankowski. 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8 : 129 171.
10. Barbeau, M. A., K. Durelle, and R. B. Aiken. 2004. A design for multifactorial choice experiments: an example using microhabitat selection by sea slugs Onchidoris bilamellata (L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 307 : 1 16.
11. Bleay, C., and B. Sinervo. 2007. Discrete genetic variation in mate choice and a condition-dependent preference function in the side-blotched lizard: implications for the formation and maintenance of coadapted gene complexes. Behav. Ecol. 18 : 304 310.
12. Boake, C. R. B. 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol. Ecol. 3 : 173 182.
13. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76 : 305 339.
14. Brooks, R. L., and J. A. Endler. 2001. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 55 : 1644 1655.
15. Chenoweth, S. F., D. Petfield, P. Doughty, and M. W. Blows. 2007. Male choice generates stabilizing sexual selection on a female fecundity correlate. J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 1745 1750.
16. Clutton-Brock, T. H. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318 : 1882 1185.
17. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and A. C. J. Vincent. 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rate of males and females. Nature 35 : 58 60.
18. Coleman, S. W., G. L. Patricelli, and G. Borgia. 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428 : 742 745.
19. Dijkstra, P. D. 2007. Know thine enemy: intra-sexual selection and sympatric speciation in Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Groningen, the Netherlands.
20. Dohm, M. R. 2002. Repeatability estimates do not always set an upper limit to heritability. Funct. Ecol. 16 273 280.
21. Duncan, A. J., C. Ginane, D. A. Elston, A. Kunaver, and I. J. Gordon. 2006. How do herbivores trade-off the positive and negative consequences of diet selection decisions? Anim. Behav. 71 : 93 99.
22. Egozcue, J. J., V. Pawlowsky-Glahn, G. Mateu-Figueras, and C. Barceló-Vidal. 2003. Isometric logratio transformation for compositional data analysis. Math. Geol. 35 : 279 300.
23. Greenwald, M. K. 2008. Behavioral economic analysis of drug preference using multiple choice procedure data. Drug Alcoh. Dep. 93 : 103 110.
24. Griffiths, R. R., J. R. Troisi, K. Silverman, and G. K. Mumford. 1993. Multiple-choice procedure: an efficient approach for investigating drug reinforcement in humans. Behav. Pharmacol. 4 : 3 13. (Pubitemid 23062644)
25. Hallgrímsson, B., and B. K. Hall. 2005. Variation: a hierarchical examination of a central concept in biology. Elsevier/Academic Press, New York.
26. Illius, A. W., I. J. Gordon, and D. A. Elston. 1999. Diet selection in goats: a test of intake-rate maximization. Ecology 80 : 1008 1018.
27. Jackson, D. A. 1997. Compositional data in community ecology: the paradigm or peril of proportions? Ecology 78 : 929 940.
28. Jobson, J. D. 1992. Applied multivariate data analysis. Vol. II: categorical and multivariate analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
29. Johnstone, R. A., J. D. Reynolds, and J. C. Deutsch. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50 : 1382 1391.
30. Kocher, T. D. 2004. Adaptive evolution and explosive speciation: the cichlid fish model. Nat. Rev. Gen. 5 : 288 298.
31. Kokko, H., and P. Monaghan. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 4 : 159 165.
32. 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. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357 : 319 330.
33. Kvarnemo, C., and L. W. Simmons. 1999. Variance in female quality, OSR and male mate choice in a bushcricket. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45 : 245 252.
34. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34 : 292 305.
35. Lande, R., O. Seehausen, and J. J. M. van Alphen. 2001. Mechanisms of rapid sympatric speciation by sex reversal and sexual selection in cichlid fish. Genetica 112-113 : 435 443.
36. LeBas, N. R., L. R. Hockham, and M. G. Ritchie. 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 : 2159 2165.
37. Lessells, C. M., and P. T. Boag. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104 : 116 121.
38. Maan M. E., B. Eshuis, M. P. Haesler, M. V. Schneider, J. J. M. van Alphen, and O. Seehausen. 2008. Color polymorphism and predation in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Copeia 2008 : 621 629.
39. Martín-Fernández, J. A., and M. E. R. Pierotti. 2009. New tools for compositional data analysis of male preference in fish species. In Abstracts of XXIV International Biometric Conference, Dublin. 13-18 July, 2008 : In press.
40. Martín-Fernández, J. A., C. Barceló-Vidal, and V. Pawlowsky-Glahn. 2003. Dealing with zeros and missing values in compositional data sets. Math. Geol. 35 : 253 278.
41. Mays, Jr. H. L., and G. E. Hill. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 554 559.
42. McElroy, D. M., and I. Kornfield. 1990. Sexual selection, reproductive behavior, and speciation in the mbuna species flock of Lake Malawi (Pisces: Cichlidae). Environ. Biol. Fishes 28 : 273 284.
43. McMillan, W. O., C. D. Jiggins, and J. Mallet. 1997. What initiates speciation in passion vine butterflies? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 : 8628 8633.
44. Murphy, C. G., and H. C. Gerhardt. 2000. Mating preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa for two properties of male advertisement calls. Evolution 54 : 660 669.
45. O'Donald, P., and M. E. N. Majerus. 1988. Frequency-dependent sexual selection. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 319 : 571 586.
46. Parker, G. A., and L. W. Simmons. 1996. Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263 : 315 321.
47. Pierotti, M. E. R., and O. Seehausen. 2007. Male mating preferences predate the origin of a female trait in an incipient species complex of Lake Victoria cichlids. J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 240 248.
48. Pierotti, M. E. R., M. E. Knight, S. Immler, N. J. Barson, G. F. Turner, and O. Seehausen. 2008. Individual variation in male mating preferences for female colouration in a polymorphic cichlid fish. Behav. Ecol. 19 : 483 488.
49. Prince, J. S., W. G. LeBlanc, and S. Macia. 2004. Design and analysis of multiple choice feeding preference data. Oecologia 138 : 1 4.
50. Pryke, S. R., and S. C. Griffith. 2007. The relative role of male vs. female mate choice in maintaining assortative pairing among discrete colour morphs. J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 1512 1521.
51. Puurtinen, M., T. Ketola, and J. S. Kotiaho. 2005. Genetic compatibility and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 : 157 158.
52. Qannari, E. M., P. Courcoux, and E. Vigneau. 2001. Common components and specific weights analysis performed on preference data. Food. Qual. Pref. 12 : 365 368.
53. Roulin, A. 1999. Nonrandom pairing by male barn owls Tyto alba with respect to a female plumage trait. Behav. Ecol. 10 : 688 689.
54. Ryan, K. K., and J. Altmann. 2001. Selection for male choice based primarily on mate compatibility in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus rhoadsi. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50 : 436 440.
55. Seehausen O., and J. J. M. van Alphen. 1998. The effect of male coloration on female mate choice in closely related Lake Victoria cichlids (Haplochromis nyererei complex). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42 : 1 8.
56. Seehausen, O., J. J. M. van Alphen, and R. Lande. 1999. Colour polymorphism and sex ratio distortion in a cichlid fish as an incipient stage in sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 2 : 367 378.
57. Servedio, M. R., and R. Lande. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60 : 674 685.
58. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9 : 1013 1027.
59. Uetz, G. W., and S. Norton. 2007. Preference for male traits in female wolf spiders varies with the choice of available males, female age and reproductive state. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61 : 631 641.
60. van Doorn, G. S., U. Dieckmann, and F. J. Weissing. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical re-evaluation. Am. Nat. 163 : 709 725.
61. Walley, P. 1996. Inferences from multinomial data: learning about a bag of marbles (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. B 58 : 3 57.
62. Widemo, F., and S. A. Sæther. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14 : 26 31.
63. Zeh, J. A., and D. W. Zeh. 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263 : 1711 1717.
64. Zeh, J. A., and D. W. Zeh. 1997. The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264 : 69 75.
65. Zimmer, I., U. Piatkowski, and T. Brey. 2007. The trophic link between squid and the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri at Pointe Geologie, Antarctica. 2007. Mar. Biol. 152 : 1187 1195.