The effect of competitor presence and relative competitive ability on male mate choice

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 769-775

  Mautz, Brian S ^a   Jennions, Michael D ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

competition; direct costs; indirect costs; male mate choice; mosquito fish

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SPERM COMPETITION; TELEOST;

GAMBUSIA HOLBROOKI;

EID: 79959469340     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr048     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G. 2008. Choice of female groups by male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Ethology. 114:479-488. (Pubitemid 351514556)
2. Aspbury A, Basolo A. 2002. Repeatable female preferences, mating order and mating success in the poeciliid fish, Heterandria Formosa. Behav Ecol. 51:238-244. (Pubitemid 36064242)
3. Barry KL, Holwell GI, Herberstein ME. 2010. Multimodal mate assess¬ment by male praying mantids in a sexually cannibalistic mating system. Anim Behav. 79:1165-1172.
4. Barry KL, Kokko H. 2010. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim Behav. 80:163-169.
5. Bateson M, Healy SD. 2005. Comparative evaluation and its implica¬tions for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:659-664. (Pubitemid 41661328)
6. Bel-Venner MC, Dray S, Allaine D, Menu F, Venner S. 2008. Unex¬pected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 275:77-82. (Pubitemid 350146732)
7. Bell AM, Hankison SJ, Laskowski KL. 2009. The repeatability of be¬havior: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav. 77:771-783.
8. Bisazza A. 1993. Male competition, female mate choice and sexual size dimorphism in Poeciliid fishes. Mar Behav Physiol. 23:257-286.
9. Bisazza A, Marconato A, Marin G. 1989. Male mate preferences in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology. 83:335-343.
10. Bisazza A, Marin G. 1995. Sexual selection and sexual size dimorphism in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces Poeciliidae). Ethol Ecol Evol. 7:169-183.
11. Bisazza A, Vaccari G, Pilastro A. 2001. Female mate choice in a mating system dominated by male sexual coercion. Behav Ecol. 12:59-64. (Pubitemid 32100797)
12. Blanckenhorn WU. 2005. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology. 111:977-1016. (Pubitemid 41527511)
13. Boake CRB. 1989. Repeatability-its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol. 3:173-182. (Pubitemid 20423774)
14. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76:305-339. (Pubitemid 32824013)
15. Bro-Jørgensen J. 2007. Reversed sexual conflict in a promiscuous an¬telope. Curr Biol. 17:2157-2161. (Pubitemid 350236861)
16. Candolin U, Salesto T. 2009. Does competition allow male mate choos-iness in three spine sticklebacks? Am Nat. 173:273-277.
17. Clutton-Brock T. 2009. Sexual selection in females. Anim Behav. 77:3-11.
18. Constantz G. 1989. Reproductive biology of Poeciliid fishes. In: Meffe G, Snelson FF, editors. Ecology and evolution of live-bearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Orlando (FL): Academic Press. p. 465-485.
19. Crawley MJ. 2005. Statistics: an introduction using R. West Sussex (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
20. Deaton R. 2008a. Use of microsatellite paternity analysis to determine male mating success in the western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Behaviour. 145:795-814. (Pubitemid 351448780)
21. Deaton R. 2008b. Factors influencing male mating behavior in Gambusia affinis (Baird & Girard) with a coercive mating system. J Fish Biol. 72:1607-1622. (Pubitemid 351549591)
22. Dohm MR. 2002. Repeatability estimates do not always set an upper limit to heritability. Funct Ecol. 16:273-280. (Pubitemid 34455395)
23. Evans JP. 2010. Quantitative genetic evidence that males trade attrac¬tiveness for ejaculate quality in guppies. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 277:3195-3201.
24. Fawcett TW, Bleay C. 2009. Previous experience shapes adaptive mate preferences. Behav Ecol. 20:68-78.
25. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav Ecol. 14:771-779. (Pubitemid 38126974)
26. Franceschi N, Lemaitre JF, Cezilly F, Bollache L. 2010. Size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a test of the prudent choice hypothesis. Anim Behav. 79:911-916.
27. Härdling R, Gosden T, Aguilee R. 2008. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am Nat. 172:259-271.
28. Härdling R, Kokko H. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res. 7:697-715. (Pubitemid 40832045)
29. Herdman EJ, Kelly CD, Godin JG. 2004. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology. 110:97-111. (Pubitemid 38300476)
30. Hoysak DJ, Godin JGJ. 2007. Repeatability of male mate choice in the mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology. 113:1007-1018. (Pubitemid 47437816)
31. Hughes AL. 1985. Male size, mating success, and mating strategy in the mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (Poeciliidae). Behav Ecol Socio-biol. 17:271-278.
32. Kelly CD. 2008. The interrelationships between resource-holding potential, resource-value and reproductive success in territorial males: how much variation can we explain? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:855-871.
33. Kokko H, Jennions MD. 2008. Sexual conflict: the battle of the sexes reversed. Curr Biol. 18:R121-R123. (Pubitemid 351192309)
34. Lessells CM, Boag PT. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities\a common mistake. Auk. 104:116-121.
35. Locatello L, Rasotto MB, Adriaenssens B, Pilastro A. 2008. Ejaculate traits in relation to male body size in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. J Fish Biol. 73:1600-1611.
36. McPeek MA. 1992. Mechanisms of sexual selection operating on body size in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Behav Ecol. 3:1-12. (Pubitemid 23398516)
37. Parker GA. 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP, editors. Sperm competition and sexual selection. London: Academic Press. p. 3-54.
38. Pilastro A, Giacomello E, Bisazza A. 1997. Sexual selection for small size in male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 264:1125-1129. (Pubitemid 27401753)
39. Plath M, Richter S, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R. 2010. Misleading mollies: surface-but not cave-dwelling Poecilia mexicana males deceive com¬petitors about mating preferences. Acta Ethol. 13:49-56.
40. Plath M, Richter S, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I. 2008. Male fish deceive competitors about mating preferences. Curr Biol. 18:1138-1141.
41. Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF. 2000. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 126:3-25.
42. Royle NJ, Lindstrom J, Metcalfe NB. 2008. Context-dependent mate choice in relation to social composition in green swordtails Xiphophorus helleri. Behav Ecol. 19:998-1005.
43. Schielzeth H, Forstmeier W. 2009. Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav Ecol. 20:416-420.
44. Servedio MR. 2007. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution. 61:2772-2789. (Pubitemid 350179381)
45. Servedio MR, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution. 60:674-685. (Pubitemid 44804512)
46. Snook RR. 2005. Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:46-53. (Pubitemid 40078228)
47. Venner S, Bernstein C, Dray S, Bel-Venner MC. 2010. Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am Nat. 175:650-661.
48. Walling CA, Royle NJ, Lindstrom J, Metcalfe NB. 2010. Do female association preferences predict the likelihood of reproduction? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:541-548.
49. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:313-320. (Pubitemid 34628657)
50. Wilson ADM, Godin JGJ, Ward AJW. 2010. Boldness and reproductive fitness correlates in the eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology. 116:96-104.
51. Wilson RS. 2005. Temperature influences the coercive mating and swimming performance of male eastern mosquitofish. Anim Behav. 70:1387-1394. (Pubitemid 41739804)
52. Wong BBM, McCarthy M. 2009. Prudent male mate choice under perceived sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquito fish. Behav Ecol. 20:278-282.
53. Zane L, Nelson WS, Jones AG, Avise JC. 1999. Microsatellite assess¬ment of multiple paternity in natural populations of a live bearing fish, Gambusia holbrooki. J Evol Biol. 12:61-69. (Pubitemid 29033108)
54. Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.
55. Ziege M, Mahlow K, Hennige-Schulz C, Kronmarck C, Tiedemann R, Streit B, Plath M. 2009. Audience effects in the Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana)-prudent male mate choice in response to perceived sperm competition risk? Front Zool. 6:17.