Environment-dependent use of mate choice cues in sticklebacks

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1223-1227

  Heuschele, Jan ^a   Mannerla, Miia ^a   Gienapp, Phillip ^a   Candolin, Ulrika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Environmental change; Eutrophication; Gasterosteus aculeatus; Mate preference; Multiple cues; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; EUTROPHICATION; MATE CHOICE; OLFACTORY CUE; PHYTOPLANKTON; SEXUAL SELECTION; TELEOST; TURBIDITY; VIABILITY; VISUAL CUE;

GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS;

EID: 70450237139     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp123     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aeschlimann P, Haberli M, Reusch T, Boehm T, Milinski M. 2003. Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 54:119-126.
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
3. Bakker T. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature. 363: 255-257.
4. Bakker T, Milinski M. 1993. The advantages of being red-sexual selection in the stickleback. Mar Behav Physiol. 23:287-300.
5. Braithwaite AI, Barber I. 2000. Limitations to colour-based sexual preferences in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 47:413-416.
6. Candolin U. 1997. Predation risk affects courtship and attractiveness of competing threespine stickleback males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 41:81-87.
7. Candolin U. 1999. The relationship between signal quality and physical condition: is sexual signalling honest in the three-spined stickleback? Anim Behav. 58:1261-1267.
8. Candolin U. 2000. Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 267:2425-2430.
9. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev. 78:575-595.
10. Candolin U, Heuschele J. 2008. Is sexual selection beneficial during adaptation to environmental change? Trends Ecol Evol. 8:446-452.
11. Candolin U, Salesto T. 2009. Does competition allow male mate choos-iness in threespine sticklebacks? Am Nat. 173:273-277.
12. Candolin U, Salesto T, Evers M. 2007. Changed environmental conditions weaken sexual selection in sticklebacks. J Evol Biol. 20:233-239.
13. Engström-Ö st J, Candolin U. 2007. Human-induced water turbidity alters selection on sexual displays in sticklebacks. Behav Ecol. 18: 393-398.
14. Frischknecht M. 1993. The breeding coloration of male 3-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as an indicator of energy investment in vigor. Evol Ecol. 7:439-450.
15. Granqvist M, Mattila J. 2004. The effects of turbidity and light intensity on the consumption of mysids by juvenile perch (Perca fluviatilis L.). Hydrobiologia. 514:93-101.
16. Gwynne D, Rentz D. 1983. Beetles on the bottle-male burprestids mistake stubbies for females (Coleoptera). J Aust Entomol Soc. 22:79-80.
17. Hale R. 2008. Evidence that context-dependent mate choice for parental care mirrors benefits to offspring. Anim Behav. 75:1283-1290.
18. Hale R, St Mary C. 2007. Nest tending increases reproductive success, sometimes: environmental effects on paternal care and mate choice in flagfish. Anim Behav. 74:577-588.
19. Heuschele J, Candolin U. 2007. An increase in pH boosts olfactory communication in sticklebacks. Biol Lett. 3:411-413.
20. Järvenpää M, Lindström K. 2004. Water turbidity by algal blooms causes mating system breakdown in a shallow-water fish, the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 271:2361-2365.
21. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev. 72: 283-327.
22. Kraak S, Bakker T, Mundwiler B. 1999. Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behav Ecol. 10:696-706.
23. Kurtz J, Kalbe M, Aeschlimann P, Haberli M, Wegner K, Reusch T. 2004. Major histocompatibility complex diversity influences parasite resistance and innate immunity in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 271:197-204.
24. Lautala T, Hirvonen H. 2008. Antipredator behaviour of naive Arctic charr young in the presence of predator odours and conspecific alarm cues. Ecol Freshw Fish. 17:78-85.
25. Lehvo A, Bäck S. 2001. Survey of macroalgal mats in the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Aquat Conserv. 11:11-18.
26. Milinski M, Bakker T. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature. 344: 330-333.
27. Milinski M, Griffiths S, Wegner K, Reusch T, Haas-Assenbaum A, Boehm T. 2005. Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:4414-4418.
28. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, and the R Core team. 2008. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-92.
29. Qvarnström A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 16:5-7.
30. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http://www.R-project.org.
31. Rafferty N, Boughman J. 2006. Olfactory mate recognition in a sym-patric species pair of three-spined sticklebacks. Behav Ecol. 17: 965-970.
32. Reusch T, Haberli M, Aeschlimann P, Milinski M. 2001. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature. 414:300-302.
33. Ricker WE. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull Fish Res Board Can. 191:1-382.
34. Rowe M, Baube C, Phillips J. 2006. Trying to see red through stickleback photoreceptors: functional substitution of receptor sensitivities. Ethology. 112:218-229.
35. Rowland W. 1989. Mate choice and the supernormality effect in female sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 24:433-438.
36. Royle NJ, Lindstroem J, Metcalfe NB. 2008. Context-dependent mate choice in relation to social composition in green swordtails Xipho-phorus helleri. Behav Ecol. 19:998-1005.
37. Seehausen O, Alphen J, Witte F. 1997. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science. 277: 1808-1811.
38. Smith V. 2003. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems-a global problem. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 10:126-139.
39. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman.
40. Suk H, Choe J. 2008. Dynamic female preference for multiple signals in Rhinogobius brunneus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:945-951.
41. Wiley RH. 1994. Errors, exaggerations and deception in animal communication. In: Real LA, editor. Behavioural mechanisms in evolutionary ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 157-189.
42. Wong B, Candolin U, Lindstrom K. 2007. Environmental deterioration compromises socially enforced signals of male quality in three-spined sticklebacks. Am Nat. 170:184-189.
43. Yeh PJ, Price TD. 2004. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the successful colonization of a novel environment. Am Nat. 164:531-542.