Male mate choice: Why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 163-169

  Barry, Katherine L ^a   Kokko, Hanna ^b,c  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Male mate choice; Pseudomantis albofimbriata; Sexual cannibalism

Indexed keywords

CANNIBALISM; FECUNDITY; INSECT; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS;

MANTIDAE; MANTODEA;

EID: 77953959371     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.020     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Amundsen T., Forsgren E. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2001, 98:13155-13160.
2. Arnold S.J., Duvall D. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. American Naturalist 1994, 143:317-348.
3. Barry K. L. In press. Influence of female nutritional status on mating dynamics in a sexually cannibalistic praying mantid, Animal Behaviour.
4. Barry K.L., Holwell G.I., Herberstein M.E. Female praying mantids use sexual cannibalism as a foraging strategy to increase fecundity. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:710-715.
5. Barry K.L., Holwell G.I., Herberstein M.E. Male mating behaviour reduces the risk of sexual cannibalism in an Australian praying mantid. Journal of Ethology 2009, 27:377-383.
6. Barry K.L., Holwell G.I., Herberstein M.E. Multimodal mate assessment by male praying mantids in a sexually cannibalistic mating system. Animal Behaviour 2010, 79:1165-1172.
7. Barry, K. L., Holwell, G. I. Herberstein, M. E. In press. A paternity advantage for speedy males? Sperm precedence patterns and female remating frequencies in a sexually cannibalistic praying mantid. Evolutionary Ecology, doi:10.1007/s10682-010-9384-3.
8. Bateman P.W., Fleming P.A. Males are selective too: mating, but not courtship, with sequential females influences choosiness in male field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2006, 59:577-581.
9. Beltran S., Cézilly F., Boissier J. Adult sex ratio affects divorce rate in the monogamous endoparasite Schistosoma mansoni. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2009, 63:1363-1368.
10. Bel-Venner M.C., Dray S., Allainé D., Menu F., Venner S. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:77-82.
11. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews 2001, 76:305-339.
12. Byrne P.G., Rice W.R. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2006, 273:917-922.
13. Candolin U., Salesto T. Does competition allow male mate choosiness in threespine sticklebacks?. American Naturalist 2009, 173:273-277.
14. Chenoweth S.F., Petfield D., Doughty P., Blows M.W. Male choice generates stabilizing sexual selection on a female fecundity correlate. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2007, 20:1745-1750.
15. Dukas R., Clark C.W., Abbott K. Courtship strategies of male insects: when is learning advantageous?. Animal Behaviour 2006, 72:1395-1404.
16. Engqvist L., Sauer K.P. Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2001, 268:729-735.
17. Engqvist L., Sauer K.P. A life history perspective on strategic mating effort in male scorpionflies. Behavioral Ecology 2002, 13:632-636.
18. Fawcett T.W., Johnstone R.A. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:771-779.
19. Forsgren E., Amundsen T., Borg Å.A., Bjelvenmark J. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 2004, 429:551-554.
20. Fromhage L., Elgar M.A., Schneider J.M. Faithful without care: the evolution of monogyny. Evolution 2005, 59:1400-1405.
21. Fromhage L., McNamara J.M., Houston A.I. A model for the evolutionary maintenance of monogyny in spiders. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2008, 250:524-531.
22. Gowaty P.A., Steinichen R., Anderson W.W. Indiscriminate females and choosy males: within- and between-species variation in Drosophila. Evolution 2003, 57:2037-2045.
23. Härdling R., Kokko H. The evolution of prudent choice. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2005, 7:697-715.
24. Härdling R., Gosden T., Aguilée R. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. American Naturalist 2008, 172:259-271.
25. Houston A.I., McNamara J.M. Models of Adaptive Behaviour: an Approach based on State 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Huber B.A. Sexual selection research on spiders: progress and biases. Biological Reviews 2005, 80:363-385.
27. Hurd L.E., Eisenberg R.M., Fagan W.F., Tilmon K.J., Snyder W.E., Vandersall K.S., Datz S.G., Welch D. Cannibalism reverses male-biased sex ratio in adult mantids: female strategy against food limitation?. Oikos 1994, 69:193-198.
28. Hutchinson J.M.C., Waser P.M. Use, misuse and extensions of 'ideal gas' models of animal encounter. Biological Reviews 2007, 82:335-359.
29. Itzkowitz M., Haley M. Are males with more attractive resources more selective in their mate preferences? A test in a polygynous species. Behavioral Ecology 1999, 10:366-371.
30. Ivy T.M., Sakaluk S.K. Sequential mate choice in decorated crickets: females use a fixed internal threshold in pre- and postcopulatory choice. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:1065-1072.
31. Jennions, M. D. Kokko, H. In press. Sexual selection. In: Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology (Ed. by D. F. Westneat C. W. Fox). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Johnstone R.A., Reynolds J.D., Deutsch J.C. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 1996, 50:1382-1391.
33. Kasumovic M.M., Bruce M.J., Herberstein M.E., Andrade M.C.B. Risky mate search and mate preference in the golden orb-web spider (Nephila plumipes). Behavioral Ecology 2007, 18:189-195.
34. Kasumovic M.M., Bruce M.J., Andrade M.C.B., Herberstein M.E. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 2008, 62:2316-2325.
35. Kokko H., Jennions M.D. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2008, 21:919-948.
36. Kokko H., Johnstone R.A. 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 2002, 357:319-330.
37. Kokko H., Monaghan P. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecology Letters 2001, 4:159-165.
38. Kokko H., Ots I. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 2006, 60:467-475.
39. Kokko H., Mappes J., Lindström L. Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecology Letters 2003, 6:1068-1076.
40. Maxwell M.R. Seasonal adult sex ratio shift in the praying mantid Iris oratoria (Mantodea: Mantidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 1998, 27:318-323.
41. Maxwell M.R. Mating behavior. The Praying Mantids 1999, 69-89. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. F.R. Prete (Ed.).
42. Nakahashi W. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection by male choice. Theoretical Population Biology 2008, 74:167-181.
43. Owens I.P.F., Thompson D.B.A. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1994, 258:93-99.
44. Parker G. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2006, 361:235-259.
45. Pelabon C., Borg Å.A., Bjelvenmark J., Forsgren E., Barber I., Amundsen T. Do male two-spotted gobies prefer large fecund females?. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:787-792.
46. Preston B.T., Stevenson I.R., Wilson K. Soay rams target reproductive activity towards promiscuous females' optimal insemination period. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:2073-2078.
47. Preston B.T., Stevenson I.R., Pemberton J.M., Coltman D.W., Wilson K. Male mate choice influences female promiscuity in Soay sheep. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2005, 272:365-373.
48. Pruitt J.N., Riechert S.E. Male mating preference is associated with risk of pre-copulatory cannibalism in a socially polymorphic spider. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2009, 63:1573-1580.
49. Reading K.L., Backwell P.R.Y. Can beggars be choosers? Male mate choice in a fiddler crab. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:867-872.
50. Reinhold K., Kurtz J., Engovist L. Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15:201-209.
51. Rowell J.T., Servedio M.R. Gentlemen prefer blondes: the evolution of mate preference among strategically allocated males. American Naturalist 2009, 173:12-25.
52. Saether S.A., Fiske P., Kålås J.A. Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulations in a lekking bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2001, 268:2097-2102.
53. Schäfer M.A., Uhl G. Sequential mate encounters: female but not male body size influences female remating behavior. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16:461-466.
54. Schmeller D.S., O'Hara R., Kokko H. Male adaptive stupidity: male mating pattern in hybridogenetic frogs. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2005, 7:1039-1050.
55. Segoli M., Harari A.R., Lubin Y. Limited mating opportunities and male monogamy: a field study of white widow spiders, Latrodectus pallidus (Theridiidae). Animal Behaviour 2006, 72:635-642.
56. Servedio M.R. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution 2007, 61:2772-2789.
57. Servedio M.R., Lande R. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 2006, 60:674-685.
58. Shackleton M.A., Jennions M.D., Hunt J. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2005, 58:1-8.
59. Shelly T.E., Bailey W.J. Experimental manipulation of mate choice by male katytids: the effect of female encounter rate. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1992, 30:277-282.
60. Stoltz J.A., McNeil J.N., Andrade M.C.B. Males assess chemical signals to discriminate just-mated females from virgins in redback spiders. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:1669-1674.
61. Thornhill R., Alcock J. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems 1983, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
62. Uetz G.W., Norton S. Preference for male traits in female wolf spiders varies with the choice of available mates, female age and reproductive state. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2007, 61:631-641.
63. Wedell N., Gage M.J.G., Parker G.A. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends in Ecology Evolution 2002, 17:313-320.
64. Werner N.Y., Lotem A. Experimental evidence for male sequential mate preference in a lekking species. Ethology 2006, 112:657-663.
65. Wong B.B.M., Svensson P.A. Strategic male signalling effort in a desert-dwelling fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2009, 63:543-549.