Mutual mate choice in the potbellied seahorse (Hippocampus abdominalis)

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 869-878

  Bahr, Angela ^a   Sommer, Stefan ^a   Mattle, Beat ^a   Wilson, Anthony B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

body size; major histocompatibility complex; olfaction; sex roles; sexual signaling

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; MATE CHOICE; MATING SUCCESS; OLFACTORY CUE; SEX ROLE; SEXUAL SELECTION; TELEOST; VISUAL CUE;

HIPPOCAMPINAE; HIPPOCAMPUS (FISH); HIPPOCAMPUS ABDOMINALIS;

EID: 84862881055     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars045     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Aeschlimann PB, Haberli MA, Reusch TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M. 2003. Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 54:119-126. (Pubitemid 36844447)
2. Agbali M, Reichard M, Bryjova A, Bryja J, Smith C. 2010. Mate choice for nonadditive genetic benefits correlate with MHC dissimilarity in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus). Evolution. 64:1683-1696.
3. AhnesjöI. 2010. Mate choice in males and females. In: Michael DB, Janice M, editors. Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Oxford: Academic Press. p. 394-398.
4. Amundsen T. 2003. Fishes as models in studies of sexual selection and parental care. J Fish Biol. 63:17-52. (Pubitemid 38600483)
5. Amundsen T, Forsgren E. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:13155-13160. (Pubitemid 33051333)
6. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
7. Aparicio JM, Ortego J, Cordero PJ. 2007. Can a simple algebraic analysis predict markers-genome heterozygosity correlations? J Hered. 98:93-96. (Pubitemid 47355535)
8. Bahr A, Wilson A. 2011. The impact of sex-role reversal on the diversity of the major histocompatibility complex: insights from the seahorse (Hippocampus abdominalis). BMC Evol Biol. 11:121.
9. Bakker TCM. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature. 363:255-257. (Pubitemid 23158527)
10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2001. Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim Behav. 61:345-350. (Pubitemid 32532992)
11. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in 2 pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:301-307.
12. Berglund A, Widemo MS, Rosenqvist G. 2005. Sex-role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behav Ecol. 16:649-655. (Pubitemid 40717668)
13. Bergstrom CT, Real LA. 2000. Towards a theory of mutual mate choice: lessons from two-sided matching. Evol Ecol Res. 2: 493-508.
14. Boehm T, Zufall F. 2006. MHC peptides and the sensory evaluation of genotype. Trends Neurosci. 29:100-107. (Pubitemid 43202599)
15. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 78:575-595. (Pubitemid 41200912)
16. Consuegra S, de Leaniz CG. 2008. MHC-mediated mate choice increases parasite resistance in salmon. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 275:1397-1403. (Pubitemid 351653009)
17. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: J. Murray.
18. Edward DA, Chapman T. 2011. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 26:647-654.
19. Eizaguirre C, Yeates SE, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M. 2009. MHCbased mate choice combines good genes and maintenance of MHC polymorphism. Mol Ecol. 18:3316-3329.
20. Erceg-Hurn DM, Mirosevich VM. 2008. Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. Am Psychol. 63:591-601.
21. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 39:175-191.
22. Forsberg LA, Dannewitz J, Petersson E, Grahn M. 2007. Influence of genetic dissimilarity in the reproductive success and mate choice of brown trout-females fishing for optimal MHC dissimilarity. J Evol Biol. 20:1859-1869. (Pubitemid 47262855)
23. Garson GD. 2011. Generalized Linear Models and generalized estimating equations, from Statnotes: topics in multivariate analysis. [cited 2011 March 11]. Raleigh (NC): NC State University. Available from: http://faculty.chass. ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm.
24. Good KP, Kopala L. 2006. Sex differences and olfactory function. In: Brewer WJ, Castle D, Pantelis C, editors. Olfaction and the brain. 1st ed. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 183-202.
25. Hall TA. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 41:95-98.
26. Hanson KC, Cooke SJ. 2009. Why does size matter? A test of the benefits of female mate choice in a teleost fish based on morphological and physiological indicators of male quality. Physiol Biochem Zool. 82:617-624.
27. Herdman EJE, Kelly CD, Godin JGJ. 2004. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology. 110:97-111. (Pubitemid 38300476)
28. Hooper PL, Miller GF. 2008. Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adapt Behav. 16:53-70.
29. Houde AE. 2001. Sex roles, ornaments, and evolutionary explanation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:12857-12859. (Pubitemid 33051278)
30. Houle D, Kondrashov AS. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 269:97-104. (Pubitemid 34117349)
31. Huchard E, Knapp LA, Wang JL, Raymond M, Cowlishaw G. 2010. MHC, mate choice and heterozygote advantage in a wild social primate. Mol Ecol. 19:2545-2561.
32. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution. 50:1382-1391.
33. Jones IL, Hunter FM. 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature. 362:238-239.
34. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC. 2007. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol. 16:1099-1106.
35. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the normOperational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357:319-330. (Pubitemid 34432068)
36. Kvarnemo C, Forsgren E. 2000. The influence of potential reproductive rate and variation in mate quality on male and female choosiness in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 48:378-384.
37. Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Jones AG. 2007. Sexually selected females in the monogamous Western Australian seahorse. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 274:521-525. (Pubitemid 47055525)
38. Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Jones AG, Nelson WS, Avise JC. 2000. Monogamous pair bonds and mate switching in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus subelongatus. J Evol Biol. 13:882-888.
39. Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L. 2001. 'Good genes as heterozygosity': the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 268:1279-1285. (Pubitemid 32622382)
40. Lastein S, Hamdani EH, Doving KB. 2006. Gender distinction in neural discrimination of sex pheromones in the olfactory bulb of crucian carp, Carassius carassius. Chem Senses. 31:69-77. (Pubitemid 43057029)
41. Lindqvist C, Sundin J, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2011. Male broadnosed pipefish Syngnathus typhle do not locate females by smell. J Fish Biol. 78:1861-1867.
42. Martin-Smith KM, Vincent ACJ. 2005. Seahorse declines in the Derwent estuary, Tasmania in the absence of fishing pressure. Biol Conserv. 123:533-545. (Pubitemid 40307051)
43. Masonjones HD, Lewis SM. 2000. Differences in potential reproductive rates of male and female seahorses related to courtship roles. Anim Behav. 59:11-20. (Pubitemid 30106789)
44. Mattle B, Wilson AB. 2009. Body size preferences in the pot-bellied seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis: choosy males and indiscriminate females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:1403-1410.
45. Milinski M. 2006. The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 37: 159-186. (Pubitemid 44907616)
46. Milinski M, Griffiths SW, Reusch TBH, Boehm T. 2010. Costly major histocompatibility complex signals produced only by reproductively active males, but not females, must be validated by a 'maleness signal' in three-spined sticklebacks. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 277:391-398.
47. Morimoto Y, Shibata J, Takahata M, Myint O, Kohda M. 2010. Male isaza (Gymnogobius isaza, Gobiidae) prefer large mates: a counterstrategy against brood parasitism by conspecific females. J Ethol. 28:429-436.
48. Neff BD, Garner SR, Heath JW, Heath D. 2008. The MHC and nonrandom mating in a captive population of Chinook salmon. Heredity. 101:175-185.
49. Paterson S, Pemberton JM. 1997. No evidence for major histocompatibility complex-dependent mating patterns in a free-living ruminant population. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 264:1813-1819. (Pubitemid 28021592)
50. Penn DJ. 2002. The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology. 108:1-21. (Pubitemid 34134669)
51. Penn DJ, Potts WK. 1999. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat. 153:145-164. (Pubitemid 29139433)
52. Ratterman NL, Rosenthal GG, Jones AG. 2009. Sex recognition via chemical cues in the sex-role reversed Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli). Ethology. 115:339-346.
53. Reynolds JD, Gross MR. 1992. Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 250:57-62. (Pubitemid 24408476)
54. Rohlf JF. 2010. tpsDIG2 [computer software]. Stony Brook (NY): SUNY Stony Brook [Cited 2010 July 18]. Available from: http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/ soft-dataacq.html.
55. Rypstra AL, Wieg C, Walker SE, Persons MH. 2003. Mutual mate assessment in wolf spiders: differences in the cues used by males and females. Ethology. 109:315-325. (Pubitemid 36551342)
56. Sandvik M, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A. 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 267:2151-2155.
57. Sommer S. 2005. The importance of immune gene variability (MHC) in evolutionary ecology and conservation. Front Zool. 2:16.
58. Stephens M, Donnelly P. 2003. A comparison of Bayesian methods for haplotype reconstruction from population genotype data. Am J Hum Genet. 73:1162-1169. (Pubitemid 37414228)
59. Stölting KN, Wilson AB. 2007. Male pregnancy in seahorses and pipefish: beyond the mammalian model. BioEssays. 29:884-896. (Pubitemid 47424898)
60. Sundin J, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2010. Turbidity hampers mate choice in a pipefish. Ethology. 116:713-721.
61. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S. 2007. MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1596-1599. (Pubitemid 47236692)
62. Vincent ACJ. 1990. Reproductive ecology of seahorses [dissertation]. Cambridge (UK)]: University of Cambridge. 100 p.
63. Vincent ACJ. 1992. Prospects for sex-role reversal in teleost fishes. Neth J Zool. 42:392-399. (Pubitemid 24407275)
64. Wakeland EK, Boehme S, She JX, Lu CC, Mcindoe RA, Cheng I, Ye Y, Potts WK. 1990. Ancestral polymorphisms of MHC class II genes-divergent allele advantage. Immunol Res. 9:115-122. (Pubitemid 20109685)
65. Wedekind C, Furi S. 1997. Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 264:1471-1479. (Pubitemid 27480703)
66. Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ. 1995. MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 260:245-249.
67. Wilson AB, AhnesjöI, Vincent ACJ, Meyer A. 2003. The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (family Syngnathidae). Evolution. 57:1374-1386. (Pubitemid 36821249)
68. Wilson AB, Martin-Smith KM. 2007. Genetic monogamy despite social promiscuity in the pot-bellied seahorse (Hippocampus abdominalis). Mol Ecol. 16:2345-2352. (Pubitemid 46897148)
69. Woods CMC. 2000. Preliminary observations on breeding and rearing the seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in captivity. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res. 34:475-485.
70. Woods CMC. 2007. Aquaculture of the pot-bellied seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis Lesson 1827 (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) [dissertation]. [Wellington (NZ)]: Victoria University. 238 p.