Sequential female assessment drives complex sexual selection on bower shape in a cichlid fish

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 2246-2253

  Young, Kyle A ^a,b   Genner, Martin J ^c,d   Haesler, Marcel P ^e,f   Joyce, Domino A ^g  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS LAGOS   (Chile)

^b ENVIRONMENT AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d THE LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^f UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

Cichlids; Extended phenotype; Lake Malawi; Leks; Mate choice; Selection analysis

Indexed keywords

CICHLID; COURTSHIP; FITNESS; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CICHLID; FEMALE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; CICHLIDS; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL;

EAST AFRICAN LAKES; LAKE MALAWI;

ANIMALIA; CICHLIDAE;

EID: 77955232948     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00984.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andersson M. Sexual selection 1994, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
2. Andersson S, Pryke S R, Ornborg J, Lawes M J, Andersson M. Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a trade-off between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. Am. Nat. 2002, 160:683-691.
3. Arnold S J, Wade M J. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 1984a, 38:720-734.
4. Arnold S J, Wade M J. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 1984b, 38:709-719.
5. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L. Interactions among mechanisms of sexual selection on male body size and head shape in a sexually dimorphic fly. Evolution 2003, 57:2046-2053.
6. Borgia G. Complex male display and female choice in the spotted bowerbird: specialized functions for different bower decorations. Anim. Behav. 1995, 49:1291-1301.
7. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows M W, Smith M J, Bussiere L F, Jennisons M D. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 2005, 59:871-880.
8. Bucher M. The costs of a non-bodily ornament: crater building in the cichlid fish, Cyathopharynx furcifer. 2004, M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
9. Candolin U. Male-male competition facilitates female choice in sticklebacks. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B 1999, 266:785-789.
10. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 2003, 78:575-595.
11. Candolin U. Opposing selection on a sexually dimorphic trait through female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Evolution 2004, 58:1861-1864.
12. Genner M J, Young K A, Haesler M P, Joyce D A. Indirect mate choice, direct mate choice and species recognition in a bower-building cichlid fish lek. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:1387-1396.
13. Hankison S J, Morris M R. Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordfish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:282-287.
14. Houle D. Genetic covariance of fitness correlates: what genetic correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution 1991, 45:630-648.
15. 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.
16. Kellogg K A, Stauffer J R, McKaye K R. Characteristics that influence male reproductive success on a lek of Lethrinops c.f. parvidens (Teleosti: Cichlidae). Behav. Ecol. Soc. 2000, 47:164-170.
17. Konings A. Malawi cichlids in their natural habitat 2007, 4th ed., Cichlid Press, El Paso, TX
18. Kraak S B M, Bakker T C M, Mundwiler B. Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behav. Ecol. 1999, 10:696-706.
19. Lande R, Arnold S J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 1983, 37:1210-1226.
20. LeBas N R, Hockman L R, Ritchie M G. Sexual selection in the gift-giving dance fly, Rhamphomyia sulcata, favors small males carrying small gifts. Evolution 2004, 58:1763-1772.
21. Madden J R. Bower decorations attract females but provoke other male spotted bowerbirds: bower owners resolve this trade-off. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:1347-1351.
22. Martin C H, Genner M J. A role for male bower size as an intrasexual signal in a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Behaviour 2009, 146:963-978.
23. McKaye K R, Louda S M, Stauffer J R. Bower size and male reproductive success in a cichlid fish lek. Am. Nat. 1990, 135:597-613.
24. Preziosi R F, Fairbairn D J. Lifetime selection on adult body size and components of body size in a waterstrider: opposing selection and maintenance of sexual size dimorphism. Evolution 2000, 54:558-566.
25. Price T D, Schluter D. On the low heritability of life history traits. Evolution 1991, 45:853-861.
26. Pryke S R, Andersson S, Lawes M J. Sexual selection of multiple handicaps in the red-collared widowbird: female choice of tail length but not carotenoid display. Evolution 2001, 55:1452-1463.
27. Reichard M, Ondrackova M, Bryjova A, Smith C, Bryja J. Breeding resource distribution affects selection gradients on male phenotypic traits: experimental study on lifetime reproductive success in the bitterling fish (Rhodeus amarus). Evolution 2009, 63:377-390.
28. Rowe L, Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1996, 263:1415-1421.
29. Ryan M J, Rand S. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female tungara frogs perceive and respond to complex variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 2003, 57:2608-2618.
30. Sæther S A, Baglo R, Fiske P, Ekblom R, Hoglund J, Kalas J A. Direct and indirect mate choice on leks. Am. Nat. 2005, 166:145-157.
31. Schaedelin F C, Taborsky M. Mating craters of Cyathopharynx furcifer (Cichlidae) are individually specific, extended phenotypes. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:753-761.
32. Schaedelin F C, Taborsky M. Extended phenotypes as signals. Biol. Rev. 2009, 84:293-313.
33. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof M W G. Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 271:2453-2457.
34. Stauffer J R J, Kellogg K A, McKaye K R. Experimental evidence of female choice in Lake Malawi cichlids. Copeia 2005, 2005:657-660.
35. Taylor R C, Buchanan B W, Doherty J L. Sexual selection in the squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella: the role of multimodal cue assessment in female choice. Anim. Beh. 2007, 74:1753-1763.
36. Trewavas E. A synopsis of the cichlid fishes of Lake Nyasa. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1935, 16:65-118.
37. Wiley R H, Poston J. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 1996, 50:1371-1381.
38. Wong B B M, Candolin U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biol. Rev. 2005, 80:559-571.
39. Young K A, Genner M J, Haesler M, Joyce D A. Hotspots, hotshots and female preference: exploring lek formation models with a bower-building cichlid fish. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:609-615.