Costly interactions between the sexes: Combined effects of male sexual harassment and female choice?

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 723-729

  Tobler, Michael ^a   Schlupp, Ingo ^b   Plath, Martin ^c  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^c GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

condition dependence; female choice; foraging; mate choice; sexual conflict; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; MALE; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION; TELEOST;

CYPRINODONTIFORMES; PISCES; POECILIA MEXICANA;

EID: 79959485793     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr044     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A. 2006. Sexual harassment influences group choice in female mosquitofish. Ethology. 112:592-598. (Pubitemid 43806480)
2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
3. Barbosa M, Magurran AE. 2011. Evidence of female-promoted poly¬andry in Trinidadian guppies. Environ Biol Fish. 90:95-102.
4. Bateman A. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity. 2: 349-368.
5. Beaugrand JP. 1997. Resolution of agonistic conflicts in dyads of ac-quanted green swordtails (Xiphophorus hellerii): a game with perfect information. Behav Process. 41:79-96.
6. Bisazza A, Martin G. 1995. Sexual selection and sexual size dimor¬phism in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces: Poe-ciliidae). Ethol Ecol Evol. 7:169-183.
7. Brewster J, Houde A. 2003. Are female guppies more likely to flee when approached by two males? J Fish Biol. 63:1056-1059. (Pubitemid 38592255)
8. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:41-47. (Pubitemid 36048852)
9. Constantz GD. 1989. Reproductive biology of poeciliid fishes. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF, editors. Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. p. 33-50.
10. Cordero C, Eberhard WG. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonis¬tic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol. 16:1-6. (Pubitemid 36108126)
11. Cummings ME, Rosenthal GG, Ryan MJ. 2003. A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:897-904. (Pubitemid 36561024)
12. Dadda M, Pilastro A, Bisazza A. 2005. Male sexual harassment and female schooling behaviour in the eastern mosquitofish. Anim Behav. 70:463-471. (Pubitemid 40968701)
13. Evans JP, Magurran AE. 2000. Multiple benefits of multiple mating in guppies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97:10074-10076.
14. Evans JP, Pierotti M, Pilastro A. 2003. Male mating behavior and ejac¬ulate expenditure under sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquitofish. Behav Ecol. 14:268-273. (Pubitemid 36386345)
15. Farr JA. 1980. The effects of sexual experience and female receptivity on courtship-rape decisions in male guppies, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Anim Behav. 28:1195-1201.
16. Farr JA. 1989. Sexual selection and secondary sexual differentiation in poeciliids: determinants of male mating success and the evolution of female choice. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF, editors. Ecology and evolu¬tion of lifebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. p. 91-123.
17. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA. 2003. Optimal assessment of multiple cues. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1637-1643. (Pubitemid 36960296)
18. Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG. 2006a. Female swordtail fish use chemical cues to select well-fed mates. Anim Behav. 72:721-725. (Pubitemid 44311112)
19. Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG. 2006b. Hungry females show stronger mat¬ing preferences. Behav Ecol. 17:979-981. (Pubitemid 44526942)
20. Giaquinto PC, da Silva Verbert CM, Delicio HC. 2010. Female prefer¬ences based on male nutritional chemical traits. Behav Ecol Socio-biol. 64:1029-1035.
21. Griffiths SW. 1996. Sex differences in the trade-off between feeding and mating in the guppy. J Fish Biol. 48:891-898.
22. Griggio M, Hoi H. 2010. Only females in poor condition display a clear preference and prefer males with an average badge. BMC Evol Biol. 10:261.
23. Head ML, Brooks R. 2006. Sexual coercion and the opportunity for sexual selection in guppies. Anim Behav. 71:515-522. (Pubitemid 43327345)
24. Heubel KU, Plath M. 2008. Influence of male harassment and female competition on female feeding behaviour in a sexual-asexual mat¬ing complex of mollies (Poecilia mexicana, P. formosa). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:1689-1699.
25. Houde AE. 1997. Sex, color, and mate choice in Guppies. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
26. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 72:283-327. (Pubitemid 27207611)
27. Johnson S, Hulsey CD, Garcia de Leon FJ. 2007. Spatial mosaic evo¬lution of snail defensive traits. BMC Evol Biol. 7:50.
28. Kodric-Brown A, Johnson SC. 2002. Ultraviolet reflectance patterns of male guppies enhance their attractiveness to females. Anim Behav. 63:391-396.
29. Kodric-Brown A, Nicoletto PF. 2001. Female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): the interaction between male color and display. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 50:346-351. (Pubitemid 32895131)
30. Köhler A, Hildenbrand P, Schleucher E, Riesch R, Arias-Rodriguez L, Streit B, Plath M. Forthcoming. 2011. Effects of male sexual harassment on female time budgets, feeding behavior, and met¬abolic rates in a tropical livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol.
31. Maćias Garcia C, Valero A. 2010. Sexual conflict and sexual selection in the Goodeinae, a clade of viviparous fish with effective female mate choice. Adv Stud Behav. 42:1-54.
32. Magurran AE. 2001. Sexual conflict and evolution in Trinidadian guppies. Genetica. 112:463-474. (Pubitemid 34119676)
33. Magurran AE, Seghers BH. 1994. A cost of sexual harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 258:89-92. (Pubitemid 24330366)
34. Miller RR, Minckley W, Norris S. 2005. Freshwater fishes of Mexico. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
35. Nosil P, Crespi B. 2006. Experimental evidence that predation pro¬motes divergence in adaptive radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:9090-9095. (Pubitemid 43902538)
36. Ojanguren AF, Magurran AE. 2007. Male harassment reduces short-term female fitness in guppies. Behaviour. 144:503-514. (Pubitemid 46889195)
37. Padur L, Wedekind J, Oztürk O, Streit B, Tiedemann R, Plath M. 2009. Do audience effects lead to relaxed male sexual harassment? Behav¬iour. 146:1739-1758.
38. Parker GA. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M, Blum S, editors. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. New York: Academic Press. p. 123-166.
39. Parzefall J. 1969. Zur vergleichenden Ethologie verschiedener Mollie-nesia-Arten einschliesslich einer Höhlenform von M. sphenops. Behaviour. 33:1-37.
40. Parzefall J. 1973. Attraction and sexual cycle of poeciliids. In: Schroeder J, editor. Genetics and mutagenesis of fish. Berlin, Ger¬many: Springer Verlag. p. 177-183.
41. Pilastro A, Benetton S, Bisazza A. 2003. Female aggregation and male competition reduce costs of sexual harassment in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Anim Behav. 65:1161-1167. (Pubitemid 36914329)
42. Pilastro A, Giacomello E, Bisazza A. 1997. Sexual selection for small size in male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1125-1129. (Pubitemid 27401753)
43. Plath M, Brümmer A, Parzefall J, Schlupp I. 2006. Size-dependent male mating behaviour and sexual harassment in a population of Atlantic mollies (Poecilia mexicana) from a sulphur creek. Acta Ethol. 9:15-21. (Pubitemid 44092108)
44. Plath M, Heubel KU, Garcia de Leon FJ, Schlupp I. 2005. Cave molly females (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae, Teleostei) like well-fed males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 58:144-151. (Pubitemid 40793275)
45. Plath M, Makowicz A, Schlupp I, Tobler M. 2007. Sexual harassment in live-bearing fishes (Poeciliidae): comparing courting and noncourt-ing species. Behav Ecol. 18:680-688. (Pubitemid 47216477)
46. Plath M, Parzefall J, Schlupp I. 2003. The role of sexual harassment in cave-and surface-dwelling populations of the Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana (Poeciliidae, Teleostei). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 54:303-309. (Pubitemid 37007821)
47. Plath M, Tobler M. 2007. Sex recognition in surface-and cave-dwelling Atlantic molly females (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae, Teleostei): influ¬ence of visual and non-visual cues. Acta Ethol. 10:81-88. (Pubitemid 47421838)
48. Ptacek MB. 1998. Interspecific mate choice in sailfin and shortfin species of mollies. Anim Behav. 56:1145-1154. (Pubitemid 28548057)
49. Reale D, Bousses P, Chapuis J. 1996. Female-biased mortality induced by male sexual harassment in a feral sheep population. Can J Zool. 74:1812-1818.
50. Ribowski A, Franck D. 1993. Subordinate swordtail males escalate faster than dominants: a failure of the social conditioning principle. Aggress Behav. 19:223-229.
51. Rosen D, Bailey R. 1963. The poeciliid fishes (Cyprinodontiformes), their structure, zoogeography and systematics. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 126:1-176.
52. Rosenthal GG, Evans CS. 1998. Female preferences for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 95:4431-4436. (Pubitemid 28207929)
53. Rowe L, Arnqvist G, Sih A, Krupa JJ. 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol Evol. 9:289-293.
54. Schlupp I, McKnab R, Ryan MJ. 2001. Sexual harassment as a cost for molly females: bigger males cost less. Behaviour. 138:277-286.
55. Schlupp I, Riesch R, Tobler M, Plath M, Parzefall J, Schartl M. 2010. A novel, sexually selected trait in poeciliid fishes: female preference for mustache-like, rostral filaments in male Poecilia sphenops. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:1849-1855.
56. Schreck CB, Moyle P. 1990. Methods for fish biology. Bethesda (MD): American Fisheries Society.
57. Shohet AJ, Watt PJ. 2004. Female association preferences based on olfactory cues in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 55:363-369. (Pubitemid 38204079)
58. Smith CC. 2007. Independent effects of male and female density on sexual harassment, female fitness, and male competition for mates in the western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1349-1358. (Pubitemid 46944559)
59. Smith CC, Sargent RC. 2006. Female fitness declines with increasing female density but not male harassment in the western mosquito-fish, Gambusia affinis. Anim Behav. 71:401-407. (Pubitemid 43185269)
60. Stutt AD, Siva-Jothy MT. 2001. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:5683-5687. (Pubitemid 32435702)
61. Sumner IT, Travis J, Johnson CD. 1994. Methods of female fertility advertisement and variation among males in responsiveness in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna). Copeia. 1994:27-34. (Pubitemid 2047333)
62. Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Camp¬bell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago (IL): Aldine Publishing Company. p. 136-179.
63. Valero A, Hudson R, Luna EA, Garcia CM. 2005. A cost worth pay¬ing: energetically expensive interactions with males protect fe¬males from intrasexual aggression. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 59: 262-269. (Pubitemid 41567059)
64. Valero A, Maćias Garcia C, Magurran AE. 2008. Heterospecific harass¬ment of native endangered fishes by invasive guppies in Mexico. Biol Lett. 4:149-152. (Pubitemid 351346300)
65. Wong BBM, Jennions MD. 2003. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:S36-S38. (Pubitemid 36960308)