Signal value of male courtship effort in a fish with paternal care

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 83, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1153-1161

  Lehtonen, Topi K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Courtship behaviour; Mate preference; Pomatoschistus minutus; Repeatability; Sand goby; Sexual selection; Sexual signalling; Signal reliability

Indexed keywords

BODY CONDITION; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PATERNAL CARE; PERCIFORM; PHENOTYPE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

KRAEMERIIDAE; POMATOSCHISTUS MINUTUS;

EID: 84859731698     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.040     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Amundsen T. Fishes as models in studies of sexual selection and parental care. Journal of Fish Biology 2003, 63:17-52. 10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00219.x.
2. 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. 10.1073/pnas.211439298.
3. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
4. Bakker T.C.M. The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 1999, 136:1237-1266. 10.1163/156853999501748.
5. Baldauf S.A., Kullmann H., Bakker T.C.M. Technical restrictions of computer-manipulated visual stimuli and display units for studying animal behaviour. Ethology 2008, 114:737-751. 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01520.x.
6. Balsby T.J.S., Dabelsteen T. Female behaviour affects male courtship in whitethroats, Sylvia communis: an interactive experiment using visual and acoustic cues. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:251-257. 10.1006/anbe.2001.1920.
7. Becker W.A. Manual of Quantitative Genetics 1984, Academic Enterprises, Pullman, Washington. 4th edn.
8. Bell A.M., Hankison S.H., Laskowski K.L. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour 2009, 77:771-783. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.022.
9. Bolger T., Connolly P.L. The selection of suitable indices for the measurement and analysis of fish condition. Journal of Fish Biology 1989, 34:171-182. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1989.tb03300.x.
10. Bouchereau J.-L., Guelorget O. Comparison of three Gobiidae (Teleostei) life history strategies over their geographical range. Oceanologica Acta 1997, 21:503-517. 10.1016/S0399-1784(98)80034-0.
11. Bro-Jørgensen J. Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2010, 25:292-300. 10.1016/j.tree.2009.11.003.
12. Candolin U. Male-male competition facilitates female choice in sticklebacks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1999, 266:785-789. 10.1098/rspb.1999.0706.
13. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 2003, 78:575-595. 10.1017/S1464793103006158.
14. Candolin U., Voigt H.-R. Predator-induced nest site preference: safe nests allow courtship in sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour 1998, 56:1205-1211. 10.1006/anbe.1998.0892.
15. Cotar C., McNamara J.M., Collins E.J., Houston A.I. Should females prefer to mate with low-quality males?. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2008, 254:561-567. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.06.015.
16. Cotton S., Fowler K., Pomiankowski A. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by handicap hypothesis?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2004, 271:771-783. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2688.
17. Fonds M. Sand gobies in the Dutch Wadden Sea (Pomatoschistus, Gobiidae, Pisces). Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 1973, 6:417-478. 10.1016/0077-7579(73)90001-X.
18. Forsgren E. Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. American Naturalist 1992, 140:1041-1049.
19. Forsgren E. Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Animal Behaviour 1997, 53:267-276. 10.1006/anbe.1996.0374.
20. Forsgren E., Kvarnemo C., Lindström K. Mode of sexual selection determined by resource abundance in two sand goby populations. Evolution 1996, 50:646-654.
21. Gibson R.M. Female choice in sage grouse: the roles of attraction and active comparison. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1996, 39:55-59. 10.1007/s002650050266.
22. Godin J.-G.J., Briggs S.E. Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Animal Behaviour 1996, 51:117-130. 10.1006/anbe.1996.0010.
23. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1990, 144:517-546. 10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80088-8.
24. Griffith S.C., Sheldon B.C. Phenotypic plasticity in the expression of sexually selected traits: neglected components of variation. Animal Behaviour 2001, 61:987-993. 10.1006/anbe.2000.1666.
25. Hamilton W.D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites?. Science 1982, 218:384-387. 10.1126/science.7123238.
26. Hastings P.A. Correlates of male reproductive success in the browncheek blenny, Acanthemblemaria crockeri (Blennioidea: Chaenopsidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1988, 22:95-102. 10.1007/BF00303544.
27. Healey M.C. Gonad development and fecundity of the sand goby, Gobius minutus Pallas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1971, 100:520-526. 10.1577/1548-8659(1971)100<520:GDAFOT>2.0.CO;2.
28. Hesthagen I.H. Migrations, breeding and growth in Pomatoschistus minutus (Pallas) (Pisces, Gobiidae) in Oslofjorden, Norway. Sarsia 1977, 63:17-26.
29. Heuschele J., Mannerla M., Gienapp P., Candolin U. Environment-dependent use of mate choice cues in sticklebacks. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 20:1223-1227. 10.1093/beheco/arp123.
30. von Hippel F.A. Vigorously courting male sticklebacks are poor fathers. Acta Ethologica 2000, 2:83-89. 10.1007/s102119900010.
31. Hoefler C.D., Persons M.H., Rypstra A.L. Evolutionarily costly courtship displays in a wolf spider: a test of viability indicator theory. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:974-979. 10.1093/beheco/arn055.
32. Hoi H., Schleicher B., Valera F. Female mate choice and nest desertion in penduline tits, Remiz pendulinus: the importance of nest quality. Animal Behaviour 1994, 48:743-746. 10.1006/anbe.1994.1296.
33. Hoikkala A., Aspi J., Suvanto L. Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality in an insect species, Drosophila montana. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1998, 265:503-508. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0323.
34. Jansson B.-O., Aneer G., Nellbring S. Spatial and temporal distribution of the demersal fish fauna in a Baltic archipelago as estimated by SCUBA census. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1985, 23:31-43.
35. Järvi-Laturi M., Lehtonen T.K., Pampoulie C., Lindström K. Parental care behaviour of sand gobies is determined by habitat related nest structure. Behaviour 2008, 145:39-50. 10.1163/156853908782687197.
36. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews 1997, 72:283-327. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1997.tb00015.x.
37. Johnstone R.A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biological Reviews 1995, 70:1-65. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1995.tb01439.x.
38. Judge K.A., Brooks R.J. Chorus participation by male bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana: a test of the energetic constraint hypothesis. Animal Behaviour 2001, 62:849-861. 10.1006/anbe.2001.1801.
39. Kangas N., Lindström K. Male interactions and female mate choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Animal Behaviour 2001, 61:425-430. 10.1006/anbe.2000.1596.
40. Kelly N.B., Alonzo S.H. Does a trade-off between current reproductive success and survival affect the honesty of male signalling in species with male parental care?. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2010, 23:2461-2473. 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02111.x.
41. Knapp R.A., Kovach J.T. Courtship as an honest indicator of male parental quality in the bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Behavioral Ecology 1991, 2:295-300. 10.1093/beheco/2.4.295.
42. Knapp R.A., Warner R.R. Male parental care and female choice in the bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus: bigger is not always better. Animal Behaviour 1991, 41:747-756. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80341-0.
43. Kodric-Brown A. Mechanisms of sexual selection: insights from fishes. Annales Zoologici Fennici 1990, 27:87-100.
44. Kokko H. Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1997, 41:99-107. 10.1007/s002650050369.
45. Kokko H. Should advertising parental care be honest?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1998, 265:1871-1878. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0515.
46. Kokko H., Brooks R., Jennions M.D., Morley J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:653-664. 10.1098/rspb.2002.2235.
47. Koops M.A., Hutchings J.A., McIntyre T.M. Testing hypotheses about fecundity, body size and maternal condition in fishes. Fish and Fisheries 2004, 5:120-130. 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2004.00149.x.
48. Kotiaho J.S., Alatalo R.V., Mappes J., Nielsen M.G., Parri S., Rivero A. Energetic costs of size and sexual signalling in a wolf spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1998, 265:2203-2209. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0560.
49. Künzler R., Bakker T.C.M. Female preferences for single and combined traits in computer animated stickleback males. Behavioral Ecology 2001, 12:681-685. 10.1093/beheco/12.6.681.
50. Kvarnemo C. Food affects the potential reproductive rates of sand goby females but not of males. Behavioral Ecology 1997, 8:605-611. 10.1093/beheco/8.6.605.
51. Kvarnemo C., Forsgren E. The influence of potential reproductive rate and variation in mate quality on male and female choosiness in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2000, 48:378-384. 10.1007/s002650000246.
52. Lehtonen T., Lindström K. Changes in sexual selection resulting from novel habitat use in the sand goby. Oikos 2004, 104:327-335. 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12489.x.
53. Lehtonen T.K., Lindström K. Mate compatibility, parental allocation and fitness consequences of mate choice in Pomatoschistus minutus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2007, 61:1581-1588. 10.1007/s00265-007-0390-6.
54. Lehtonen T.K., Lindström K. Repeatability of mating preferences in the sand goby. Animal Behaviour 2008, 75:55-61. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.011.
55. Lehtonen T.K., Lindström K. Females decide whether size matters: plastic mate preferences tuned to the intensity of male-male competition. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 20:195-199. 10.1093/beheco/arn134.
56. Lehtonen T.K., Wong B.B.M. Should females prefer males with elaborate nests?. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 20:1015-1019. 10.1093/beheco/arp091.
57. Lehtonen T.K., Rintakoski S., Lindström K. Mate preference for multiple cues: interplay between male and nest size in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behavioral Ecology 2007, 18:696-700. 10.1093/beheco/arm032.
58. Lehtonen T.K., Wong B.B.M., Lindström K. Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biological Letters 2010, 6:21-23. 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0558.
59. Lehtonen T.K., Svensson P.A., Wong B.B.M. Both male and female identity influence variation in male signalling effort. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2011, 11:233. 10.1186/1471-2148-11-233.
60. Lima S.L., Dill L.M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1990, 68:619-640. 10.1139/z90-092.
61. Lindström K., Pampoulie C. Effects of resource holding potential and resource value on tenure at nest sites in sand gobies. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16:70-74. 10.1093/beheco/arh132.
62. Lindström K., Ranta E. Predation by birds affects population structure in breeding sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus, males. Oikos 1992, 64:527-532.
63. Lindström K., Wennström C. Expected future reproductive success and paternal behaviour in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus (Pisces, Gobiidae). Journal of Fish Biology 1994, 44:469-477. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb01227.x.
64. Lindström K., St Mary C.M., Pampoulie C. Sexual selection for male parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2006, 60:46-51. 10.1007/s00265-005-0138-0.
65. Lissåker M., Kvarnemo C., Svensson O. Effects of a low oxygen environment on parental effort and filial cannibalism in the male sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:374-381. 10.1093/beheco/14.3.374.
66. Magnhagen C. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1991, 6:183-186. 10.1016/0169-5347(91)90210-O.
67. Milinski M., Bakker T.C.M. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 1990, 344:330-333. 10.1038/344330a0.
68. Milner R.N.C., Jennions M.D., Backwell P.R.Y. Non-independent mate choice in a fiddler crab: a case of stimulus enhancement. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011, 65:1419-1424. 10.1007/s00265-011-1152-z.
69. Okuda N., Ito S., Iwao H. Mate availability and somatic condition affect filial cannibalism in a paternal brooding goby. Behaviour 2004, 141:279-296. 10.1163/156853904322981851.
70. Oliveira R.F., Rosenthal G.G., Schlupp I., McGregor P.K., Cuthill I.C., Endler J.A., Fleishman L.J., Zeil J., Barata E., Burford F., et al. Considerations on the use of video playbacks as visual stimuli: the Lisbon workshop consensus. Acta Ethologica 2000, 3:61-65. 10.1007/s102110000019.
71. Olsson K.H., Kvarnemo C., Svensson O. Relative costs of courtship behaviours in nest-building sand gobies. Animal Behaviour 2009, 77:541-546. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.021.
72. östlund-Nilsson S. Fifteen-spined stickleback (Spinachia spinachia) females prefer males with more secretional threads in their nests: an honest-condition display by males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2001, 50:263-269. 10.1007/s002650100350.
73. Pampoulie C., Lindström K., St Mary C.M. Have your cake and eat it too: male sand gobies show more parental care in the presence of female partners. Behavioral Ecology 2004, 15:199-204. 10.1093/beheco/arg107.
74. Patricelli G.L., Uy J.A.C., Walsh G., Borgia G. Male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature 2002, 415:279-280. 10.1038/415279a.
75. Polak M., Starmer W.T. Parasite-induced risk of mortality elevates reproductive effort in male Drosophila. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1998, 265:2197-2201. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0559.
76. Quader S. What makes a good nest? Benefits of nest choice to female Baya weavers (Ploceus philippinus). The Auk 2006, 123:475-486. 10.1642/0004-8038(2006)123[475:WMAGNB]2.0.CO;2.
77. Reading K.L., Backwell P.R.Y. Can beggars be choosers? Male mate choice in a fiddler crab. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:867-872. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.09.025.
78. Reynolds J.D. Should attractive individuals court more? Theory and a test. American Naturalist 1993, 141:914-927.
79. Rintamäki P.T., Höglund J., Alatalo R.V., Lundberg A. Correlates of male mating success on black grouse (Tetrao tetrix L.) leks. Annales Zoologici Fennici 2001, 38:99-109.
80. Rowe L., Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1996, 263:1415-1421. 10.1098/rspb.1996.0207.
81. Saaristo M., Craft J.A., Lehtonen K.K., Lindström K. Sand goby (Pomatoschistus minutus) males exposed to an endocrine disrupting chemical fail in nest and mate competition. Hormones and Behavior 2009, 56:315-321. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.06.010.
82. Santangelo N., Itzkowitz M. Sex differences in the mate selection process of the monogamous, biparental convict cichlid, Archocentrus nigrofasciatum. Behaviour 2004, 141:1041-1059. 10.1163/1568539042360125.
83. Simmons R. Honest advertising, sexual selection, courtship displays, and body condition of polygynous male harriers. The Auk 1988, 105:303-307.
84. Sundell J. Dynamics and composition of littoral fish fauna along the coast of SW-Finland. Aqua Fennica 1994, 24:37-49.
85. Svensson O., Kvarnemo C. The importance of sperm competition risk and nest appearance for male behavior and female choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16:1042-1048. 10.1093/beheco/ari085.
86. Svensson O., Nyman A., Kvarnemo C. Costly courtship or dishonest display? Intensively displaying sand goby (Pomatoschistus minutus) males have a lower lipid content. Journal of Fish Biology 2004, 64:1425-1429. 10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00381.x.
87. Svensson P.A., Lehtonen T.K., Wong B.B.M. The interval between sexual encounters affects male courtship tactics in a desert-dwelling fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2010, 64:1967-1970. 10.1007/s00265-010-1007-z.
88. Tomkins J.L., Radwan J., Kotiaho J.S., Tregenza T. Genetic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2004, 19:323-328. 10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029.
89. Welch A.M., Semlitsch R.D., Gerhardt H.C. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 1998, 280:1928-1930. 10.1126/science.280.5371.1928.
90. Wong B.B.M., Candolin U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biological Reviews 2005, 80:559-575. 10.1017/S1464793105006809.
91. Wong B.B.M., Svensson P.A. Strategic male signalling effort in a desert-dwelling fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2009, 63:543-549. 10.1007/s00265-008-0689-y.
92. Wong B.B.M., Candolin U., Lindström K. Environmental deterioration compromises socially enforced signals of male quality in three-spined sticklebacks. American Naturalist 2007, 170:184-189. 10.1086/519398.
93. Wong R.Y., So P., Cummings M.E. How female size and male displays influence mate preference in a swordtail. Animal Behaviour 2011, 82:691-697. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.06.024.
94. Zahavi A. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology 1977, 67:603-605.
95. Zander C.D. Habitat and prey dependent distribution of sand gobies, Pomatoschistus minutus (Gobiidae, Teleostei), in the SW Baltic. Zoologischer Anzeiger 1990, 224:328-341.