Are high-quality mates always attractive? State-dependent mate preferences in birds and humans

Communicative and Integrative Biology

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 271-273

  Riebel, Katharina ^a   Holveck, Marie Jeanne ^b   Verhulst, Simon ^c   Fawcett, Tim W ^d  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b CENTRE D ECOLOGIE FONCTIONNELLE ET EVOLUTIVE   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Attractiveness; Birds; Choosiness; Condition; Constrained and unconstrained choice; Humans; Preference function; State dependent mate choice; Zebra finch

Indexed keywords

AVES; PASSERI; TAENIOPYGIA GUTTATA;

EID: 80052059422     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19420889     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4161/cib.3.3.11557     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Holveck M-J, Riebel K. Low quality females prefer low quality males when choosing a mate. Proc R Soc Lond B 2010; 277:18-20.
2. Holveck M-J, Vieira de Castro AC, Lachlan RF, ten Cate C, Riebel K. Accuracy of song syntax learning and singing consistency signal early condition in zebra finches. Behav Ecol 2008; 19:1267-81.
3. de Kogel CH, Prijs HJ. Effects of brood size manipulations on sexual attractiveness of offspring in the zebra finch. Anim Behav 1996; 51:699-708.
4. de Kogel CH. Long-term effects of brood size manipulation on morphological development and sex-specific mortality of offspring. J Anim Ecol 1997; 66:167-78.
5. Naguib M, Riebel K, Marzal A, Gil D. Nestling immunocompetence and testosterone covary with brood size in a songbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 2004; 271:833-8.
6. Verhulst S, Holveck M-J, Riebel K. Long-term effects of manipulated natal brood size on metabolic rate in zebra finches. Biol Lett 2006; 2:478-80.
7. Zann RA. The Zebra Finch: a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford ornithology series. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996.
8. Jennions MD, Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 1997; 72:283-327.
9. Basolo AL. Variation between and within the sexes in body size preferences. Anim Behav 2004; 68:75-82.
10. Bel-Venner MC, Dray S, Allaine D, Menu F, Venner S. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc R Soc Lond B 2008; 275:77-82.
11. Hunt J, Broooks R, Jennions MD. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am Nat 2005; 166:79-92.
12. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 2006; 16:755-65.
13. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav Ecol 2003; 14:771-9.
14. Härdling R, Kokko H. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res 2005; 7:697-715.
15. McNamara JM, Forslund P, Lang A. An ESS model for divorce strategies in birds. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1999; 354:223-36.
16. Fawcett TW, Bleay C. Previous experiences shape adaptive mate preferences. Behav Ecol 2009; 20:68-78.
17. Burley NT, Foster VS. Variation in female choice of mates: condition influences selectivity. Anim Behav 2006; 72:713-9.
18. Buston PM, Emlen ST. Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in western society. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100:8805-10.
19. Todd PM, Penke L, Fasolo B, Lenton AP. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104:15011-6.
20. Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001; 268:39-44.
21. Todd PM, Miller GF. From pride and prejudice to persuasion: satisficing in mate search. In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, eds. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; 287-308.
22. Roney JR, Lukaszewski AW, Simmons ZL. Rapid endocrine responses of young men to social interactions with young women. Horm Behav 2007; 52:326-33.
23. Creel S. Social dominance and stress hormones. Trends Ecol Evol 2001; 167:491-549.
24. Bennett PM, Owens IPF. Evolutionary Ecology of Birds: Life Histories, Mating Systems and Extinction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
25. Cotar C, McNamara JM, Collins EJ, Houston AI. Should females prefer to mate with low-quality males? J Theor Biol 2008; 254:561-7.
26. Burley N. The meaning of assortative mating. Ethol Sociobiol 1983; 4:191-203.
27. Kalick SM, Hamilton TE. The matching hypothesis reexamined. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 51:673-82.
28. Thiessen D, Gregg B. Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium-an evolutionary perspective. Ethol Sociobiol 1980; 1:111-40.
29. Mays HL, Hill GE. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 2004; 19:554-9.
30. Qvarnström A, Part T, Sheldon BC. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 2000; 405:344-7.
31. Bateson M, Healy SD. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 2005; 20:659-64.