A sex-specific trade-off between mating preferences for genetic compatibility and body size in a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 279, Issue 1740, 2012, Pages 2959-2964

  Thünken, Timo ^a   Meuthen, Denis ^a   Bakker, Theo C M ^a   Baldauf, Sebastian A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Fish; Inbreeding; Kin selection

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CICHLID; GENETIC ANALYSIS; KIN SELECTION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTATION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RELATEDNESS; SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL CONFLICT; TRADE-OFF;

CICHLIDAE; PELVICACHROMIS TAENIATUS;

EID: 84863111793     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0333     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man (ed. B. Campbell), pp. 139-179. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
2. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 2003 Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109, 929-950. (doi:10.1046/j.1439-0310.2003.00945.x)
3. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 1996 The evolution of polyandry. I. intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1711-1717. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0250)
4. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2000 Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1013-1027. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00964.x)
5. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M. D. & Morley, J. 2003 The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 653-664. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2235)
7. Mays, H. L. & Hill, G. E. 2004 Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 554-559. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.018)
8. Roberts, S. C. & Gosling, L. M. 2003 Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nat. Genet. 35, 103-106. (doi:10.1038/ng1231)
9. Colegrave, N., Kotiaho, J. S. & Tomkins, J. L. 2002 Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4, 911-917.
10. Neff, B. D. & Pitcher, T. E. 2005 Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14, 19-38. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02395.x)
11. Lehmann, L., Keller, L. F. & Kokko, H. 2007 Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation. J. Theor. Biol. 244, 282-295. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.07.033)
12. Reid, J. M. 2007 Secondary sexual ornamentation and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 1395-1402. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0063)
13. Kempenaers, B. 2007 Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv. Study Behav. 37, 189-278. (doi:10.1016/S0065-3454(07)37005-8)
14. Clutton-Brock, T. 2007 Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318, 1882-1885. (doi:10.1126/science. 1133311)
15. Pusey, A. & Wolf, M. 1996 Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 201-206. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10028-8)
16. Frommen, J. & Bakker, T. C. M. 2006 Inbreeding avoidance through non-random mating in sticklebacks. Biol. Lett. 2, 232-235. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0432)
17. Bateson, P. 1982 Preferences for cousins in Japanese quail. Nature 295, 236-237. (doi:10.1038/295236a0)
18. Richard, M., Losdat, S., Lecomte, J., de Fraipont, M. & Clobert, J. 2009 Optimal level of inbreeding in the common lizard. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2779-2786. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0319)
19. Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., Baldauf, S. A. & Kullmann, H. 2007 Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr. Biol. 17, 225-229. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.053)
20. Penn, D. J. & Potts, W. K. 1999 The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am. Nat. 153, 145-164. (doi:10.1086/303166)
21. Milinski, M. 2006 The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 159-186. (doi:10.1146/annurev. ecolsys.37.091305.110242)
22. Baldauf, S. A., Bakker, T. C. M., Kullmann, H. & Thünken, T. 2011 Female nuptial coloration and its adaptive significance in a mutual mate choice system. Behav. Ecol. 22, 478-485. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arq226)
23. Baldauf, S. A., Bakker, T. C. M., Herder, F., Kullmann, H. & Thünken, T. 2010 Male mate choice scales female ornament allometry in a cichlid fish. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 301. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-301)
24. Jones, A. G. & Ratterman, N. L. 2009 Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10 001-10 008. (doi:10. 1073/pnas.0901129106)
25. Milinski, M. & Bakker, T. C. M. 1990 Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344, 330-333. (doi:10. 1038/344330a0)
26. Reusch, T. B. H., Haberli, M. A., Aeschlimann, P. B. & Milinski, M. 2001 Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414, 300-302. (doi:10.1038/35104547)
27. Eizaguirre, C., Yeates, S. E., Lenz, T. L., Kalbe, M. & Milinski, M. 2009 MHC-based mate choice combines good genes and maintenance of MHC polymorphism. Mol. Ecol. 18, 3316-3329. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04243.x)
28. Rick, I. P., Modarressie, R. & Bakker, T. C. M. 2006 UVwavelengths affect female mate choice in three-spined sticklebacks. Anim. Behav. 71, 307-313. (doi:10.1016/j. anbehav.2005.03.039)
29. Sherborne, A. L., Thom, M. D., Paterson, S., Jury, F., Ollier, W. E. R., Stockley, P., Beynon, R. J. & Hurst, J. L. 2007 The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Curr. Biol. 17, 2061-2066. (doi:10.1016/j. cub.2007.10.041)
30. Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F. & Paepke, A. J. 1995 Mhc-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260, 245-249. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0087)
31. Roberts, S. C. & Little, A. C. 2008 Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica 134, 31-43. (doi:10.1007/s10709-008-9254-x)
32. Baldauf, S. A., Kullmann, H., Schroth, S. H., Thünken, T. & Bakker, T. C. M. 2009 You can't always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. BMC Evol. Biol. 9, 129. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-129)
33. Nuttall, D. B. & Keenleyside, M. H. A. 1993 Mate choice by the male convict cichlid (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum, Pisces, Cichlidae). Ethology 95, 247-256. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00474.x)
34. Beeching, S. C. & Hopp, A. B. 1999 Male mate preference and size-assortative pairing in the convict cichlid. J. Fish Biol. 55, 1001-1008. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb00735.x)
35. Noonan, K. C. 1983 Female mate choice in the cichlid fish Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. Anim. Behav. 31, 1005-1010. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80005-0)
36. Gagliardi-Seeley, J., Leese, J., Santangelo, N. & Itzkowitz, M. 2009 Mate choice in female convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata) and the relationship between male size and dominance. J. Ethol. 27, 249-254. (doi:10.1007/s10164-008-0111-2)
37. Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.-X., Cornuau, J. H., Keddar, I., Ihle, M., Motreuil, S. & Cezilly, F. 2011 Rapid assessment of female preference for male size predicts subsequent choice of spawning partner in a socially monogamous cichlid fish. C. R. Biol. 334, 906-910. (doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2011.08.004)
38. Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., Baldauf, S. A. & Kullmann, H. 2007 Direct familiarity does not alter mating preference for sisters in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Ethology 113, 1107-1112. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01422.x)
39. Thünken, T., Baldauf, S. A., Kullmann, H., Schuld, J., Hesse, S. & Bakker, T. C. M. 2011 Size-related inbreeding preference and competitiveness in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Behav. Ecol. 22, 358-362. (doi:10. 1093/beheco/arq217)
40. Langen, K., Schwarzer, J., Kullmann, H., Bakker, T. C. M. & Thünken, T. 2011 Microsatellite support for active inbreeding in a cichlid fish. PLoS ONE 6, e246891. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024689)
41. Baldauf, S. A., Kullmann, H., Thünken, T., Winter, S. & Bakker, T. C. M. 2009 Computer animation as a tool to study preferences in the cichlid Pelvicachromis taeniatus. J. Fish Biol. 75, 738-746. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02347.x)
42. Thünken, T., Meuthen, D., Bakker, T. C. M. & Kullmann, H. 2010 Parental investment in relation to offspring quality in the biparental cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Anim. Behav. 80, 69-74. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.001)
43. Meuthen, D., Baldauf, S. A., Bakker, T. C. M. & Thünken, T. 2011 Substrate-treated water: A method to enhance fish activity in laboratory experiments. Aquat. Biol. 13, 35-40. (doi:10.3354/ab00348)
44. Couldridge, V. C. K. & Alexander, G. J. 2001 Does the time spent near a male predict f emale mate choice in a Malawian cichlid? J. Fish Biol. 59, 667-672. (doi:10. 1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02370.x)
45. Santangelo, N. 2005 Courtship in the monogamous convict cichlid; what are individuals saying to rejected and selected mates? Anim. Behav. 69, 143-149. (doi:10. 1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.020)
46. Engqvist, L. 2005 The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Anim. Behav. 70, 967-971. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.016)
47. Neff, B. D., Garner, S. R., Heath, J.W. & Heath, D. 2008 The MHC and non-random mating in a captive population of Chinook salmon. Heredity 101, 175-185. (doi:10.1038/hdy.2008.43)
48. Garner, T. W. J. & Schmidt, B. R. 2003 Relatedness, body size and paternity in the alpine newt, Triturus alpestris. Proc. R. Soc. B 270, 619-624. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2284)
49. Wedekind, C., Evanno, G., Urbach, D., Jacob, A. &Muller, R. 2008 'Good-genes' and 'compatible-genes' effects in an Alpine whitefish and the information content of breeding tubercles over the course of the spawning season. Genetica 132, 199-208. (doi:10.1007/s10709-007-9164-3)
50. Agbali, M., Reichard, M., Bryjova, A., Bryja, J. &Smith, C. 2010Mate choice for nonadditive genetic benefits correlate withMHC dissimilarity in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus). Evolution 64, 1683-1696. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00961.x)
51. Kekalainen, J., Huuskonen, H., Tuomaala, M. &Kortet, R. 2010 Both male and female sexual ornaments reflect offspring performance in a fish. Evolution 64, 3149-3157. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01084.x)
52. Kokko, H. & Ots, I. 2006 When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60, 467-475. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006. tb01128.x)
53. Charlesworth, D. & Charlesworth, B. 1987 Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 18, 237-268. (doi:10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.001321)
54. Waldman, B. & McKinnon, J. S. 1993 Inbreeding and outbreeding in fishes, amphibians and reptiles. In The natural history of inbreeding and outbreeding (ed. N. W. Thornhill), pp. 250-282. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
55. Crnokrak, P. & Barrett, S. C. H. 2002 Perspective: purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56, 2347-2358. (doi:10.1111/j. 0014-3820.2002.tb00160.x)
56. Glemin, S. 2003 How are deleterious mutations purged? Drift versus nonrandom mating. Evolution 57, 2678-2687. (doi:10.1554/03-406)