"Cryptic" direct benefits of mate choice: Choosy females experience reduced predation risk while in precopula

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 905-913

  Cothran, Rickey D ^a   Chapman, Kristopher ^a   Stiff, Andy R ^a   Relyea, Rick A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Dragonfly larva; Epitheca; Hyalella; Lepomis macrochirus; Libellula; Precopulatory mate guarding

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; AMPHIPOD; BIODIVERSITY; COPULATION; DRAGONFLY; FECUNDITY; MATE CHOICE; PERCIFORM; PREDATION RISK; SURVIVAL;

AMPHIPODA; ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); EPITHECA; HYALELLA; LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS; LIBELLULA;

EID: 84861229455     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-012-1339-y     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adams J, Greenwood PJ (1983) Why are males bigger than females in pre-copula pairs of Gammarus pulex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13: 239-241.
2. Alcock J (1994) Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Annu Rev Entomol 39: 1-21.
3. Amano H, Hayashi K (1998) Costs and benefits for water strider (Aquarius paludum) females of carrying guarding reproductive males. Ecol Res 13: 263-272.
4. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
6. Boake C (1985) Genetic consequences of mate choice: a quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science 227: 1061-1063.
7. Bollache L, Kaldonski N, Troussard J, Lagrue C, Rigaud T (2006) Spines and behaviour as defences against predatory fish in an invasive freshwater amphipod. Anim Behav 72: 627-633.
8. Borgia G (1981) Mate selection in the fly Scatophaga stercoraria: female choice in a male-controlled system. Anim Behav 29: 71-80.
9. Bousfield EL (1958) Freshwater amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can Field-Nat 72: 55-113.
10. Brooks R (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406: 67-70.
11. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J Evol Biol 16: 1055-1060.
12. Chesson J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64: 1297-1304.
13. Cothran R (2004) Precopulatory mate guarding affects predation risk in two freshwater amphipod species. Anim Behav 68: 1133-1138.
14. Cothran RD (2008a) Direct and indirect fitness consequences of female choice in a crustacean. Evolution 62: 1666-1675.
15. Cothran RD (2008b) Phenotypic manipulation reveals sexual conflict over precopula duration. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62: 1409-1416.
16. Cothran RD (2008c) The mechanistic basis of a large male mating advantage in two freshwater amphipod species. Ethology 114: 1145-1153.
17. Cothran RD, Kuzmic A, Wellborn GA, Relyea RA (2010) Phenotypic manipulation provides insights into the function of a sexually selected trait in a freshwater crustacean species complex. Anim Behav 80: 543-549.
18. Davis E (2002) Female choice and the benefits of mate guarding by male mallards. Anim Behav 64: 619-628.
19. Edwards T, Cowell B (1992) Population-dynamics and secondary production of Hyalella azteca (Amphipoda) in Typha stands of a subtropical Florida Lake. J N Am Benthol Soc 11: 69-79.
20. Evans J, Kelley J, Bisazza A, Finazoo E, Pilastro A (2004) Sire attractiveness influences offspring performance in guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B 271: 2035-2042.
21. Forsgren E (1992) Predation risk affects mate choice in gobiid fish. Am Nat 140: 1041-1049.
22. Godin J-G, Briggs S (1996) Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Anim Behav 51: 117-130.
23. Greenwood PJ, Adams J (1984) Sexual dimorphism in Gammarus pulex: the effect of current flow on precopula pair formation. Freshwater Biol 14: 203-209.
24. Greenwood PJ, Adams J (1987) Sexual selection, size dimorphism and a fallacy. Oikos 48: 106-108.
25. Gwynne DT (1984) Male mating effort, confidence of paternity, and insect sperm competition. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of insect mating systems. Academic, Orlando, pp 117-149.
26. Head M, Hunt J, Jennions M, Brooks R (2005) The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol 3(2): e33.
27. Hedrick AV, Dill LM (1993) Mate choice by female crickets is influenced by predation risk. Anim Behav 46: 193-196.
28. Hine E, Lachish S, Higgie M, Blows M (2002) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 2215-2219.
29. Jones T, Quinnell R, Balmford A (1998) Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 265: 1651-1657.
30. Jormalainen V (1998) Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: male competitive strategy and intersexual conflict. Q Rev Biol 73: 275-304.
31. Kirkpatrick M (1985) Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species-the demise of the sexy son. Am Nat 125: 788-810.
32. Kirkpatrick M (1996) Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50: 2125-2140.
33. Kirkpatrick M, Burton NH (1997) The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. P Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 1282-1286.
34. Kotiaho J, Puurtinen M (2007) Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct Ecol 21: 638-644.
35. Linn C, Molina Y, Difatta J, Christenson T (2007) The adaptive advantage of prolonged mating: a test of alternative hypotheses. Anim Behav 74: 481-485.
36. Manly B (1974) A model for certain types of selection experiments. Biometrics 30: 281-294.
37. McLain D (1998) Non-genetic benefits of mate choice: fecundity enhancement and sexy sons. Anim Behav 55: 1191-1201.
38. Mikolajewski DJ, De Block M, Rolff J, Johansson F, Beckerman AP, Stoks R (2010) Predator-driven trait diversification in a dragonfly genus: covariation in behavioral and morphological antipredator defense. Evolution 64: 3327-3335.
39. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1991) Frequent copulations and mate guarding as alternative paternity guards in birds: a comparative study. Behaviour 118: 170-186.
40. Naylor C, Adams J (1987) Sexual dimorphism, drag constraints and male performance in Gammarus duebeni (Amphipoda). Oikos 48: 23-27.
41. Norris K (1993) Heritable variation in a plumage indicator of viability in male great tits Parus major. Nature 362: 537-539.
42. Parker GA (1970) The reproductive behaviour and nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). V. The female's behaviour at the oviposition site. Behaviour 37: 140-168.
43. Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371: 598-599.
44. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45: 1422-1430.
45. Reynolds J, Gross M (1992) Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond B 250: 57-62.
46. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon, Oxford.
47. Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Tregenza T (2011) Guarding males protect females from predation in a wild insect. Curr Biol 21: 1716-1719.
48. Rundle HD, Odeen A, Mooers AØ (2007) An experimental test for indirect benefits in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Evol Biol 7: 36.
49. Sheldon BC, Merila J, Qvarnstrom A, Gustafsson L, Ellegren H (1997) Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc R Soc Lond B 264: 297-302.
50. Shine R (1979) Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. Copeia 1979: 297-306.
51. Stoks R, McPeek M (2006) A tale of two diversifications: reciprocal habitat shifts to fill ecological space along the pond permanence gradient. Am Nat 168: S50-S72.
52. Strong DR (1973) Amphipod amplexus, the significance of ecotypic variation. Ecology 54: 1383-1388.
53. Sutcliffe DW (1992) Reproduction in Gammarus (Crustacea, Amphipoda): basic processes. Freshw Forum 2: 102-129.
54. Tsubaki Y, Siva-Jothy MT, Ono T (1994) Re-copulation and post-copulatory mate guarding increase immediate female reproductive output in the dragonfly Nannophya pygmaea Rambur. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35: 219-225.
55. Waage JK (1979) Adaptive significance of postcopulatory guarding of mates and nonmates by male Calopteryx maculate (Odonata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 6: 147-154.
56. Ward PI (1986) A comparative field study of the breeding behavior of a stream and a pond population of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Oikos 46: 29-36.
57. Wedell N, Tregenza T (1999) Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 53: 620-625.
58. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.
59. Wellborn GA (1994) Size-biased predation and prey life histories: a comparative study of freshwater amphipod populations. Ecology 75: 2104-2117.
60. Wellborn GA (1995) Determinates of reproductive success in a freshwater amphipod species that experience different mortality regimes. Anim Behav 50: 353-363.
61. Wellborn GA (2000) Selection on a sexually dimorphic trait in ecotypes within the Hyalella azteca species complex (Amphipoda: Hyalellidae). American Midland Naturalist 143: 212-225.
62. Wellborn GA, Bartholf S (2005) Ecological context and the importance of body and gnathopod size for pairing success in two amphipod ecomorphs. Oecologia 143: 308-316.
63. Wellborn GA, Broughton RE (2008) Diversification on an ecologically constrained adaptive landscape. Mol Ecol 17: 2927-2936.
64. Wellborn GA, Cothran R (2004) Phenotypic similarity and differentiation among sympatric cryptic species in a freshwater amphipod species complex. Freshwater Biol 49: 1-13.
65. Wellborn GA, Cothran RD (2007a) Niche diversity in crustacean cryptic species: complementarity in spatial distribution and predation risk. Oecologia 154: 175-183.
66. Wellborn GA, Cothran RD (2007b) Ecology and evolution of mating behaviour in freshwater amphipods. In: Duffy EJ, Thiel M (eds) Evolutionary ecology of social and sexual systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 147-167.
67. Wellborn GA, Robinson JV (1991) The influence of fish predation in an experienced prey community. Can J Zool 69: 2515-2522.
68. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27: 337-363.
69. Wellborn G, Cothran R, Bartholf S (2005) Life history and allozyme diversification in regional ecomorphs of the Hyalella azteca (Crustacea: Amphipoda) species complex. Biol J Linn Soc 84: 161-175.
70. Witt JDS, Hebert PDN (2000) Cryptic species diversity and evolution in the amphipod genus Hyalella within central glaciated North America: a molecular phylogenetic approach. Canandian J Fish Aquat Sci 57: 687-698.
71. Witt J, Blinn D, Hebert P (2003) The recent evolutionary origin of the phenotypically novel amphipod Hyalella montezuma offers an ecological explanation for morphological stasis in a closely allied species complex. Mol Ecol 12: 405-413.
72. Witt JDS, Threloff DL, Hebert PDN (2006) DNA barcoding reveals extraordinary cryptic species diversity in an amphipod genus: implications for desert spring conservation. Mol Ecol 15: 3073-3082.