Males prefer small females in a dichotomous choice test in the poeciliid fish heterandria formosa

Ethology

Volumn 116, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 736-743

  Ala Honkola, Outi ^a   Säilä, Laura ^a   Lindström, Kai ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CHEMICAL CUE; CYPRINID; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FECUNDITY; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEX PHEROMONE; SPERM;

CYPRINODONTIFORMES; HETERANDRIA; HETERANDRIA FORMOSA; PISCES; POECILIIDAE;

EID: 77955146680     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01789.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ala-Honkola O. Pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection in the least killifish, Heterandria formosa. 2009, http://ethesis.helsinki.fi, PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki,
2. Ala-Honkola O, Uddström A, Diaz Pauli B, Lindström K. Strong inbreeding depression in male mating behaviour in a poeciliid fish. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:1396-1406.
3. Ala-Honkola O, Tuominen L, Lindström K. Inbreeding avoidance in a Poeciliid fish (Heterandria formosa). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0955-7, DOI
4. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
5. Aspbury A S, Basolo A L. Repeatable female preferences, mating order and mating success in the poeciliid fish, Heterandria formosa. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2002, 51:238-244.
6. Bagenal T B, Braum E. Eggs and early life history. Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters 1978, 165-201. Bagenal T B, In, ed, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp
7. Basolo A L. Variation between and within the sexes in body size preferences. Anim. Behav. 2004, 68:75-82.
8. Bisazza A, Pilastro A. Small male mating advantage and reversed size dimorphism in poeciliid fishes. J. Fish Biol. 1997, 50:397-406.
9. Bisazza A, Marconato A, Marin G. Male mate preferences in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology 1989, 83:335-343.
10. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 2001, 76:305-339.
11. Carazo P, Sanchez E, Font E, Desfilis E. Chemosensory cues allow male Tenebrio molitor beetles to assess the reproductive status of potential mates. Anim. Behav. 2004, 68:123-129.
12. Crow R T, Liley N R. Sexual pheromone in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Peters). Can. J. Zool. 1979, 57:184-188.
13. Deaton R. Factors influencing male mating behaviour in Gambusia affinis (Baird & Girard) with a coercive mating system. J. Fish Biol. 2008, 72:1607-1622.
14. Dosen L D, Montgomerie R. Female size influences mate preferences of male guppies. Ethology 2004a, 110:245-255.
15. Dosen L D, Montgomerie R. Mate preferences by male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2004b, 55:266-271.
16. Evans J P, Magurran A E. Patterns of sperm precedence and predictors of paternity in the Trinidadian guppy. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2001, 268:719-724.
17. Farr J A. Sexual selection and secondary sexual differentiation in poeciliids: determinants of male mating success and the evolution of female choice. Ecology & Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) 1989, 91-123. Meffe G KSnelson F F. In, eds, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp
18. Farr J A, Travis J. Fertility advertisement by female sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Copeia 1986, 1986:467-472.
19. Fraser E A, Renton R M. Observation on the breeding and development of the viviparous fish, Heterandria formosa. Q. J. Microsc. Sci. 1940, 81:479-516.
20. Gabor C. Association patterns of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): alternative hypotheses. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1999, 46:333-340.
21. Grove B D, Wourms J P. The follicular placenta of the viviparous fish, Heterandria formosa. I. ultrastructure and development of the embryonic absorptive surface. J. Morphol. 1991, 209:165-284.
22. Guevara-Fiore P, Skinner A, Watt P J. Do male guppies distinguish virgin females from recently mated ones? Anim. Behav. 2009, 77:425-431.
23. Gwynne D T. Food quality controls sexual selection in mormon crickets by altering male mating investment. Ecology 1993, 74:1406-1413.
24. Herdman E J E, Kelly C D, Godin J G J. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 2004, 110:97-111.
25. Hoare D J, Krause J, Peuhkuri N, Godin J G J. Body size and shoaling in fish. J. Fish Biol. 2000, 57:1351-1366.
26. Houde A E. Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies 1997, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
27. Hoysak D J, Godin J J. Repeatability of male mate choice in the mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology 2007, 113:1007-1018.
28. Kodric-Brown A. Female choice of multiple male criteria in guppies - interacting effects of dominance, coloration and courtship. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1993, 32:415-420.
29. Landeau L, Terborgh J. Oddity and the confusion effect in predation. Anim. Behav. 1986, 34:1372-1380.
30. Lewis S M, Iannini J. Fitness consequences of differences in male mating-behavior in relation to female reproductive status in flour beetles. Anim. Behav. 1995, 50:1157-1160.
31. Martin F D. Heterandria formosa Agassiz, least killifish. Atlas of North American Fishes 1980, 547. Lee D SGilbert C RHocutt C HJenkins R EMcAllister D EStauffer J R. In, eds, North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC, pp
32. McPeek M A. Mechanisms of sexual selection operating on body size in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Behav. Ecol. 1992, 3:1-12.
33. Parker G A. Mate quality and mating decisions. Mate Choice 1983, 141-164. Bateson P. In, ed, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY, USA, pp
34. Plath M, Seggel U, Burmeister H, Heubel K U, Schlupp I. Choosy males from the underground: male mating preferences in surface- and cave-dwelling atlantic mollies (Poecilia mexicana). Naturwissenschaften 2006, 93:103-109.
35. Ptacek M B, Travis J. Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 1997, 51:1217-1231.
36. Reznick D N, Miles D B. Review of life history patterns in poeciliid fishes. Ecology & Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) 1989, 125-148. Meffe G K, Snelson F F. In, eds, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp
37. Ryan M J, Wagner W E. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species - female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 1987, 236:595-597.
38. Schrader M, Travis J. Testing the viviparity-driven-conflict hypothesis: parent-offspring conflict and the evolution of reproductive isolation in a poeciliid fish. Am. Nat. 2008, 172:807-817.
39. Schwagmeyer P L, Parker G A. Male mate choice as predicted by sperm competition in 13-lined ground squirrels. Nature 1990, 348:62-64.
40. Simmons L W. Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bush cricket. Nature 1992, 358:61-63.
41. Simmons L W, Llorens T, Schinzig M, Hosken D, Craig M. Sperm competition selects for male mate choice and protandry in the bush cricket, Requena verticalis (orthoptera, tettigoniidae). Anim. Behav. 1994, 47:117-122.
42. Soucy S, Travis J. Multiple paternity and population genetic structure in natural populations of the poeciliid fish, Heterandria formosa. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16:1328-1336.
43. Theodorakis C W. Size segregation and the effects of oddity on predation risk in minnow schools. Anim. Behav. 1989, 38:496-502.
44. Travis J, Trexler J C, Mulvey M. Multiple paternity and its correlates in female Poecilia latipinna (poeciliidae). Copeia 1990, 1990:722-729.
45. Tudor M S, Morris M R. Variation in male mate preference for female size in the swordtail Xiphophorus malinche. Behaviour 2009, 146:727-740.
46. Wong B B M, McCarthy M. Prudent male mate choice under perceived sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquito fish. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:278-282.
47. Zar J H. Biostatistical Analysis 1999, 4th edn, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ