Female nuptial coloration and its adaptive significance in a mutual mate choice system

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 478-485

  Baldauf, Sebastian A ^a   Bakker, Theo C M ^a   Kullmann, Harald ^b   Thünken, Timo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

cichlid fish; female female competition; male mate choice; multicomponent signaling; Pelvicachromis taeniatus; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; CICHLID; COLOR MORPH; DOMINANCE; FECUNDITY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; NUPTIAL GIFT; ORNAMENTATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

AFRICAN CICHLIDS; CICHLIDAE; PELVICACHROMIS TAENIATUS;

EID: 79955414214     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq226     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Amundsen T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol. 15:149-155. (Pubitemid 30151592)
2. Amundsen T, Forsgren E. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 98:13155-13160. (Pubitemid 33051333)
3. Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Hansen LTT. 1997. On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1579-1586. (Pubitemid 27504136)
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
5. Andersson M, Simmons LW. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:296-302. (Pubitemid 43850058)
6. Bakker TCM, Rowland WJ. 1995. Male mating preference in sticklebacks: effects of repeated testing and own attractiveness. Behaviour. 132:935-949. (Pubitemid 26454300)
7. Bakker TCM, Sevenster P. 1983. Determinants of dominance in male sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Behaviour. 86:55-71.
8. Baldauf SA, Bakker TCM, Herder F, Kullmann H, Thünken T. 2010. Male mate choice scales female ornament allometry in a cichlid fish. BMC Evol Biol. 10:301.
9. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Bakker TCM. 2008. Technical restrictions of computer-manipulated visual stimuli and display units for studying animal behaviour. Ethology. 114:737-751. (Pubitemid 351951927)
10. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Schroth SH, Thünken T, Bakker TCM. 2009. You can't always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. BMC Evol Biol. 9:129.
11. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Winter S, Thünken T, Bakker TCM. 2009. Computer animation as a tool to study preferences in the cichlid Pelvicachromis taeniatus. J Fish Biol. 75:738-746.
12. Barlow GW. 2002. The cichlid fishes-nature's grand experiment in evolution. Cambridge: Perseus.
13. Bates D, Maechler M. 2009. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-31 ed.
14. Baube CL. 1997. Manipulations of signalling environment affect male competitive success in three-spined sticklebacks. Anim Behav. 53:819-833.
15. Beeching SC, Gross SH, Bretz HS, Hariatis E. 1998. Sexual dichromatism in convict cichlids: the ethological significance of female ventral coloration. Anim Behav. 56:1021-1026. (Pubitemid 28494547)
16. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:301-307.
17. Bernet P, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A. 1998. Female-female competition affects female ornamentation in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Behaviour. 135:535-550.
18. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76:305-339. (Pubitemid 32824013)
19. Burley N. 1986. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat. 127:415-445.
20. Clutton-Brock TH. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science. 318:1882-1885.
21. Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ. 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature. 351:58-60. (Pubitemid 21896533)
22. Darwin C. 1871. On the descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
23. D'Eath RB. 1998. Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behaviour experiments? Biol Rev. 73:267-292. (Pubitemid 28474674)
24. Doutrelant C, Gregoire A, Grnac N, Gomez D, Lambrechts MM, Perret P. 2008. Female coloration indicates female reproductive capacity in blue tits. J Evol Biol. 21:226-233. (Pubitemid 350256629)
25. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J. 2004. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature. 429:551-554. (Pubitemid 38737657)
26. Funk DH, Tallamy DW. 2000. Courtship role reversal and deceptive signals in the long-tailed dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicuada. Anim Behav. 59:411-421. (Pubitemid 30656499)
27. Griggio M, Valera F, Casas A, Pilastro A. 2005. Males prefer ornamented females: a field experiment of male choice in the rock sparrow. Anim Behav. 69:1243-1250. (Pubitemid 40793432)
28. Hardling R, Kokko H. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res. 7:697-715. (Pubitemid 40832045)
29. Hill GE. 1993. Male mate choice and the evolution of female plumage coloration in the house finch. Evolution. 47:1515-1525. (Pubitemid 2078234)
30. Hooper PL, Miller GF. 2008. Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adapt Behav. 16:53-70.
31. Houde AE. 2001. Sex roles, ornaments, and evolutionary explanation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 98:12857-12859. (Pubitemid 33051278)
32. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357:319-330. (Pubitemid 34432068)
33. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Komdeur J. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim Behav. 74:657-677. (Pubitemid 47538522)
34. Künzler R, Bakker TCM. 1998. Computer animations as a tool in the study of mating preferences. Behaviour. 135:1137-1159. (Pubitemid 128682164)
35. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution. 34:292-305. (Pubitemid 10031375)
36. LeBas NR. 2006. Female finery is not for males. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:170-173.
37. MacLaren RD, Rowland WJ. 2006. Differences in female preference for male body size in Poecilia latipinna using simultaneous versus sequential stimulus presentation designs. Behaviour. 143:273-292. (Pubitemid 44431622)
38. Maynard Smith J, Harper D. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Mazzi D, Künzler R, Bakker TCM. 2003. Female preference for symmetry in computer-animated three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 54:156-161. (Pubitemid 36844451)
40. McGregor PK. 2000. Playback experiments: design and analysis. Acta Ethol. 3:3-8.
41. Parker GA. 2006. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 361:235-259. (Pubitemid 44870111)
42. Pierotti MER, Seehausen O. 2007. Male mating preferences pre-date the origin of a female trait polymorphism in an incipient species complex of Lake Victoria cichlids. J Evol Biol. 20:240-248. (Pubitemid 44968174)
43. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R-Core-team. 2009. nlme: linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models.Rpackage version 3.1-92.
44. R-Development-Core-Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
45. Rick IP, Bakker TCM. 2008. UV wavelengths make female three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) more attractive for males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:439-445. (Pubitemid 350292572)
46. Rosenqvist G. 1990. Male mate choice and female-female competition for mates in the pipefish Nerophis ophidion. Anim Behav. 39: 1110-1115. (Pubitemid 20428858)
47. Rosenthal GG. 2000. Design considerations and techniques for constructing video stimuli. Acta Ethol. 3:49-54.
48. Servedio MR. 2007. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution. 61:2772-2789. (Pubitemid 350179381)
49. Servedio MR, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution. 60:674-685. (Pubitemid 44804512)
50. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H. 2007a. Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol. 17:225-229. (Pubitemid 46186018)
51. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H. 2007b. Direct familiarity does not alter mating preferences for sisters in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Ethology. 113:1107-1112. (Pubitemid 47609678)
52. Thünken T, Meuthen D, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H. 2010. Parental investment in relation to offspring quality in the biparental cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Anim Behav. 80:69-74.