Male, but not female, preference for an ornament expressed in both sexes of the polygynous mosquito Sabethes cyaneus

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 81, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 645-651

  South, Sandra H ^a   Arnqvist, Göran ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Culicidae; Diptera; Mutual mate choice; Mutual ornament; Polygyny; Sabethes cyaneus; Sex role; Sexual selection; Signal

Indexed keywords

FITNESS; MATE CHOICE; MOSQUITO; ORNAMENTATION; POLYGYNY; SEX RATIO; SEX ROLE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

CULICIDAE; DIPTERA; SABETHES CYANEUS;

EID: 79851511312     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.12.014     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Allen B.J., Levinton J.S. Costs of bearing a sexually selected ornamental weapon in a fiddler crab. Functional Ecology 2007, 21:154-161.
2. Amundsen T. Why are female birds ornamented?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2000, 15:149-155.
3. 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.
4. Andersson M. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 1982, 299:818-820.
5. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
6. Armbruster P., Hutchinson R.A. Pupal mass and wing length as indicators of fecundity in Aedes albopictus and Aedes geniculatus. Journal of Medical Entomology 2002, 39:699-704.
7. Arnqvist G., Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour 2000, 60:145-164.
8. Basolo A.L., Delaney K.J. Male biases for male characteristics in females in Priapella olmecae and Xiphophorus helleri (Family Poeciliidae). Ethology 2001, 107:431-438.
9. Becker N., Petric D., Zgomba M., Boase C., Dahl C., Lane J., Kaiser A. Mosquitoes and Their Control 2003, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
10. Berglund A., Rosenqvist G. Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Animal Behaviour 2001, 61:345-350.
11. Berglund A., Widemo M.S., Rosenqvist G. Sex-role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16:649-655.
12. Bitton P.P., Dawson R.D., Ochs C.L. Plumage characteristics, reproductive investment and assortative mating in tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2008, 62:1543-1550.
13. Blackmore M.S., Lord C.C. The relationship between size and fecundity in Aedes albopictus. Journal of Vector Ecology 2000, 25:212-217.
14. Bolker B.M., Brooks M.E., Clark C.J., Geange S.W., Poulsen J.R., Stevens M.H.H., White J.-S.S. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2009, 24:127-135.
15. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews 2001, 76:305-339.
16. Bonduriansky R. Reappraising sexual coevolution and the sex roles. PLoS Biology 2009, 7:e1000255. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000255.
17. Bradbury J.W. The evolution of leks. Natural Selection and Social Behavior: Research and New Theory 1981, 138-169. Chiron Press, New York. R.D. Alexander, D. W.Tinkle (Eds.).
18. Briegel H. Fecundity, metabolism, and body size in Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae), vectors of malaria. Journal of Medical Entomology 1990, 27:839-850.
19. Briegel H. Metabolic relationship between female body size, reserves, and fecundity of Aedes aegypti. Journal of Insect Physiology 1990, 36:165-172.
20. Briegel H., Timmermann S.E. Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae): physiological aspects of development and reproduction. Journal of Medical Entomology 2001, 38:566-571.
21. Burley N. Parental investment, mate choice, and mate quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1977, 74:3476-3479.
22. Burley N. The evolution of sexual indistinguishability. Natural Selection and Social Behavior: Research and New Theory 1981, 121-137. Chiron Press, New York. R.D. Alexander, D. W.Tinkle (Eds.).
23. Chenoweth S.F., Doughty P., Kokko H. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornaments?. Ecology Letters 2006, 9:179-184.
24. Clutton-Brock T. Sexual selection in females. Animal Behaviour 2009, 77:3-11.
25. Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Sexual Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, John Murray, London.
26. Deutsch J.C., Reynolds J.D. The evolution of sex differences in mate choice. Perspectives in Ethology 1995, 11:297-323.
27. Doutrelant C., Gregoire A., Grnac N., Gomez D., Lambrechts M.M., Perret P. Female coloration indicates female reproductive capacity in blue tits. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2008, 21:226-233.
28. Eberhard W.G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice 1996, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
29. Edman J.D., Day J.F., Walker E.D. Field confirmation of laboratory observations on the differential antimosquito behavior of herons. Condor 1984, 86:91-92.
30. Emlen S.T., Oring L.W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 1977, 197:215-223.
31. Engqvist L. The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Animal Behaviour 2005, 70:967-971.
32. Evans M.R. Limits on the evolution of tail ornamentation in birds. American Naturalist 2004, 163:341-357.
33. Fitzpatrick S., Berglund A., Rosenqvist G. Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 1995, 55:251-260.
34. Godin J.G.J., McDonough H.E. Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:194-200.
35. Guinan D.M., Sealy S.G. Diet of house wrens (Troglodytes aedon) and the abundance of the invertebrate prey in the dune-ridge forest, Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1986, 65:1587-1596.
36. Gwynne D.T. Sexual competition among females: what causes courtship-role reversal?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1991, 6:118-121.
37. Hall D.W., Kirkpatrick M., West B. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution 2000, 54:1862-1869.
38. Hancock R.G., Foster W.A., Yee W.L. Courtship behavior of the mosquito Sabethes cyaneus (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 1990, 3:401-416.
39. Hancock R.G., Yee W.L., Foster W.A. Tests of Sabethes cyaneus leg paddle function in mating and flight. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1990, 6:733-735.
40. Heinsohn R., Legge S., Endler J.A. Extreme reversed sexual dichromatism in a bird without sex role reversal. Science 2005, 309:617-619.
41. Hooper P.L., Miller G.F. Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adaptive Behavior 2008, 16:53-69.
42. Huxley J.S. The courtship habits of the great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus); with and addition to the theory of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1914, 35:491-562.
43. Jackson R.R., Nelson X.J., Sune G.O. A spider that feeds indirectly on vertebrate blood by choosing female mosquitoes as prey. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2005, 102:15155-15160.
44. Johnstone R.A. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1997, 40:51-59.
45. Johnstone R.A., Reynolds J.D., Deutsch J.C. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 1996, 50:1382-1391.
46. Jones I.L., Hunter F.M. Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Animal Behaviour 1999, 57:521-528.
47. Judd D.D. Review of the systematics and phylogenetic relationships of Sabethini (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Entomology 1996, 21:129-150.
48. Kokko H., Jennions M.D. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2008, 21:919-948.
49. 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.
50. Kraaijeveld K., Kraaijeveld F.J.L., Komdeur J. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:657-677.
51. Lande R. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 1980, 34:292-305.
52. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1981, 78:3721-3725.
53. Lande R. Genetic correlations between the sexes in the evolution of sexual dimorphism and mating preferences. Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives 1987, 83-95. J. Wiley, Chichester. J.W. Bradbury, M.B. Andersson (Eds.).
54. Lande R., Arnold S.J. Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1985, 117:651-664.
55. Langmore N.E., Bennett A.T.D. Strategic concealment of sexual identity in an estrildid finch. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1999, 266:543-550.
56. LeBas N.R. Female finery is not for males. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2006, 21:170-173.
57. LeBas N.R., Hockham L.R., Ritchie M.G. Nonlinear and correlation sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:2159-2165.
58. Livdahl T.P., Wiley M.S. Prospects for an invasion: competition between Aedes albopictus and native Aedes triseriatus. Science 1991, 253:189-191.
59. Long T.A.F., Pischedda A., Stewart A.D., Rice W.R. A cost of sexual attractiveness to high-fitness females. PLoS Biology 2009, 7:e1000254. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000254.
60. Lounibos L.P., Larson V.L., Morris C.D. Parity, fecundity and body size of Mansonia dyari in Florida. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1990, 6:121-126.
61. Maklakov A., Arnqvist G. Testing for direct and indirect effects of mate choice by manipulating female choosiness. Current Biology 2009, 19:1903-1906.
62. Maynard Smith J., Harper D. Animal Signals 2003, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
63. Munoz A., Aparicio J.M., Bonal R. Male barn swallows use differential resource allocation rules to produce ornamental tail feathers. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:404-409.
64. Nakahashi W. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection by male choice. Theoretical Population Biology 2008, 74:167-181.
65. Ord T.J., Stuart-Fox D. Ornament evolution in dragon lizards: multiple gains and widespread losses reveal a complex history of evolutionary change. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2006, 19:797-808.
66. 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.
67. Packer M.J., Corbet P.S. Size variation and reproductive success of female Aedes punctor (Diptera: Culicidae). Ecological Entomology 1989, 14:297-309.
68. Parker G.A. Mate quality and mating decisions. Mate Choice 1983, 141-166. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P. Bateson (Ed.).
69. Price T., Schluter D., Heckman N.E. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1993, 48:187-211.
70. Robertson H.M. Female dimorphism and mating behaviour in a damselfly, Ischnura ramburi: females mimicking males. Animal Behaviour 1985, 33:805-809.
71. Roitberg B.D., Mondor E.B., Tyerman J.G.A. Pouncing spider, flying mosquito: blood acquisition increases predation risk in mosquitoes. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:736-740.
72. Rowe L. The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Animal Behaviour 1994, 48:1049-1056.
73. Schall R. Estimation in generalized linear models with random effects. Biometrika 1991, 78:719-727.
74. Servedio M.R., Lande R. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 2006, 60:674-685.
75. Shuster S.M., Wade M.J. Mating Systems and Strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
76. Siefferman L., Hill G.E. Evidence for sexual selection on structural plumage coloration in female eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Evolution 2005, 59:1819-1828.
77. Simmons L.W. Sperm Competition and Its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects 2001, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
78. Simmons L.W., Emlen D.J. No fecundity cost of female secondary sexual trait expression in the horned beetle Onthophagus sagittarius. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2008, 21:1227-1235.
79. Sinervo B., Basolo A.L. Testing adaptation using phenotypic manipulations. Adaptation 1996, 149-185. Academic Press, New York. M.R. Rose, G. Lauder (Eds.).
80. South S.H., Arnqvist G. Evidence of monandry in a mosquito (Sabethes cyaneus) with elaborate ornaments in both sexes. Journal of Insect Behavior 2008, 21:451-459.
81. South S.H., Arnqvist G. Morphological variation of an ornament expressed in both sexes of the mosquito Sabethes cyaneus. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2009, 11:1-21.
82. South S.H., Steiner D., Arnqvist G. Male mating costs in a polygynous mosquito with ornaments expressed in both sexes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2009, 276:3671-3678.
83. Travis J., Reznick D. Experimental approaches to the study of evolution. Experimental Ecology: Issues and Perspectives 1998, 437-459. Oxford University Press, New York. W.J. Resitarits, J. Bernando (Eds.).
84. Vincent A., Ahnesjö I., Berglund A., Rosenqvist G. Pipefishes and seahorses: are they all sex role reversed?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1992, 7:237-241.
85. Watson P.J., Arnqvist G., Stallmann R.R. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. American Naturalist 1998, 151:46-58.
86. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology 1983, 58:155-183.
87. Wright D., Kerje S., Brändström H., Schütz K., Kindmark A., Andersson L., Jensen P., Pizzari T. The genetic architecture of a female sexual ornament. Evolution 2008, 62:86-98.