Should females prefer males with elaborate nests?

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1015-1019

  Lehtonen, Topi K ^a   Wong, Bob B M ^a,b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Body condition; Multiple cues; Nest construction; Nest takeovers; Pomatoschistus minutus; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BODY CONDITION; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; NESTING BEHAVIOR; PERCIFORM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

KRAEMERIIDAE; POMATOSCHISTUS MINUTUS;

EID: 70349445389     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp091     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barber I, Nairn D, Huntingford FA. 2001. Nests as ornaments: revealing construction by male sticklebacks. Behav Ecol. 12:390-396.
2. Bisazza A, Marconato A. 1988. Female mate choice, male-male competition and parental care in the river bullhead, Cottus gobio L. (Pisces, Cottidae). Anim Behav. 36:1352-1360.
3. Borgia G. 1995. Why do bowerbirds build bowers? Am Sci. 83:542-547.
4. Bult A, Lynch CB. 1997. Nesting and fitness: lifetime reproductive success in house mice bidirectionally selected for thermoregulatory nest-building behavior. Behav Genet. 27:231-240.
5. Byrne PG, Keogh JS. 2009. Extreme sequential polyandry insures against nest failure in a frog. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 276:115-120.
6. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev. 78:575-595.
7. Candolin U, Reynolds JD. 2001. Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav Ecol. 12:407-411.
8. Forsgren E. 1997. Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1283-1286.
9. Forsgren E, Kvarnemo C, Lindström K. 1996. Mode of sexual selection determined by resource abundance in two sand goby populations. Evolution. 50:646-654.
10. Hastings PA. 1988. Female choice and male reproductive success in the angel blenny, Coralliozetus angelica (Teleostei: Chaenopsidae). Anim Behav. 36:115-124.
11. Hoi H, Schleicher B, Valera F. 1994. Female mate choice and nest desertion in penduline tits, Remiz pendulinus: the importance of nest quality. Anim Behav. 48:743-746.
12. Jennions MD, Backwell PRY. 1996. Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes. Biol J Linn Soc. 57:293-306.
13. Jones JC, Reynolds JD. 1999. The influence of oxygen stress on female choice for male nest structure in the common goby. Anim Behav. 57:189-196.
14. Kleindorfer S. 2007. Nesting success in Darwin's small tree finch, Camarhynchus parvulus: evidence of female preference for older males and more concealed nests. Anim Behav. 74:795-804.
15. Kodric-Brown A. 1990. Mechanisms of sexual selection: insights from fishes. Ann Zool Fenn. 27:87-100.
16. Kvarnemo C, Svensson O, Forsgren E. 1998. Parental behaviour in relation to food availability in the common goby. Anim Behav. 56:1285-1290. (Pubitemid 28548072)
17. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2007. Mate compatibility, parental allocation and fitness consequences of mate choice in Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1581-1588.
18. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2009. Females decide whether size matters: plastic mate p tuned to the intensity of male-male competition. Behav Ecol. 20:195-199.
19. Lehtonen TK, Rintakoski S, Lindström K. 2007. Mate preference for multiple cues: interplay between male and nest size in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol. 18:696-700.
20. Lindström K. 1988. Male-male competition for nest sites in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Oikos. 53:67-73.
21. Lindström K. 1992a. Female spawning patterns and male mating success in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Mar Biol. 113:475-480.
22. Lindström K. 1992b. The effect of resource holding potential, nest size and information about resource quality on the outcome of intruder-owner conflicts in the sand goby. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30:53-58.
23. Lindström K, Pampoulie C. 2005. Effects of resource holding potential and resource value on tenure at nest sites in sand gobies. Behav Ecol. 16:70-74.
24. Lindström K, St. Mary CM, Pampoulie C. 2006. Sexual selection for male parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:46-51.
25. Miller PJ. 1986. Gobiidae. In: Whitehead PJP, Bauchot M-L, Huureau J-C, Nielsen J, Tortonese E, editors. Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Vol, 3. Paris (France): UNESCO. p. 1019-1085.
26. Olsson KH, Kvarnemo C, Svensson O. 2009. Relative costs of courtship behaviours in nest-building sand gobies. Anim Behav. 77:541-546.
27. Ö stlund-Nilsson S. 2001. Fifteen-spined stickleback (Spinachia spinachia) females prefer males with more secretional threads in their nests: an honest-condition display by males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 50:263-269.
28. Östlund-Nilsson S, ssHolmlund M. 2003. The artistic three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteous aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 53:214-220
29. Quader S. 2006. What makes a good nest? Benefits of nest choice to female Baya weavers (Ploceus philippinus). Auk. 123:475-486.
30. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E. 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol. 13:498-501.
31. Schaedelin FC, Taborsky M. 2006. Mating craters of Cyathopharynx furcifer (Cichlidae) are individually specific, extended phenotypes. Anim Behav. 72:753-761.
32. Soler JJ, Cuervo JJ, Møller AP, de Lope F. 1998. Nest building is a sexually selected behaviour in the barn swallow. Anim Behav. 56:1435-1442.
33. Soler JJ, Møller AP, Soler M. 1998. Nest building, sexual selection and parental investment. Evol Ecol. 12:427-441.
34. Soler JJ, Martýn-Vivaldi M, Haussy C, Møller AP. 2007. Intra-and interspecific relationships between nest size and immunity. Behav Ecol. 18:781-791.
35. Svensson O, Kvarnemo C. 2003. Sexually selected nest-building- Pomatoschistus minutus males build smaller nest-openings in the presence of sneaker males. J Evol Biol. 16:896-902.
36. Svensson O, Kvarnemo C. 2005. The importance of sperm competition risk and nest appearance for male behavior and female choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol. 16:1042-1048.
37. Takahashi D, Kohda M, Yanagisawa Y. 2001. Male-male competition for large nests as a determinant of male mating success in a Japanese stream goby, Rhinogobius sp. DA. Ichthyol Res. 48:91-95. (Pubitemid 33379809)
38. Vahed K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev. 73:43-78.
39. Wiebe KL. 2003. Delayed timing as a strategy to avoid nest-site competition: testing a model using data from starlings and flickers. Oikos. 100:291-298.
40. Wong BBM, Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2008. Male nest choice in sand gobies, Pomatoschistus minutus. Ethology. 114:575-581.