Female mate choice for multimodal courtship and the importance of the signaling background for selection on male ornamentation

Current Zoology

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 200-209

  Stafstrom, Jay A ^a   Hebets, Eileen A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

Enhancement; Environmental variability; Inter signal interaction; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877782247     PISSN: 16745507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/czoolo/59.2.200     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Andersson M, 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biology Journal of the Linnean Society 17: 375-393.
2. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual Selection. PrincetonNJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Backwell PRY, Jennions MD, Christy JH, Passmore NI, 1999. Female choice in the synchronously waving fiddler crab Uca annulipes. Ethology 105: 415-421.
4. Barske J, Schlinger BA, Wikelski M, Fusani L, 2011. Female choice for male motor skills. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278: 3523-3528.
5. Basolo AL, 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250: 808-810.
6. Byers J, Hebets E, Podos J, 2010. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Animal Behaviour 79: 771-778.
7. Candolin U, 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biology Reviews 78: 575-595.
8. Clark DL, Roberts JA, Uetz GW, 2012. Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders. Biology Letters 8: 375-378.
9. Costanzo K, Monteiro A, 2007. The use of chemical and visual cues in female choice in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Procedings of the Biological Sciences 274: 845-851.
10. Darwin C, 1871. The descent of Man,and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
11. de Heij ME, Gustafsson L, Brommer JE, 2011. Experimental manipulation shows that the white wing patch in collared flycatchers is a male sexual ornament. Ecology and Evolution 1: 546-555.
12. Delaney KJ, Roberts JA, Uetz GW, 2007. Male signaling behavior and sexual selection in a wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae): A test for dual functions. Behavior, Ecology, and Sociobiology 62: 67-75.
13. Elias DO, Maddison WP, Peckmezian C, Girard MB, Mason AC, 2012. Orchestrating the score: Complex multimodal courtship in the Habronattus coecatus group of Habronattus jumping spiders. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 105: 522-547.
14. Elias DO, Mason AC, Hoy RR, 2004. The effect of substrate on the efficacy of seismic courtship signal transmission in the jumping spider Habronattus dossenus. Journal of Experimental Biology 207: 4105-4110.
15. Framenau VW, Hebets EA, 2007. A review of leg ornamentation in male wolf spiders, with the description of new species from Australia, Artoria schizocoides (Araneae, Lycosidae). Journal of Arachnoly 35: 89-101.
16. Gerhardt HC, 1991. Female mate choice in tree frogs: Static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Animal Behaviour 42: 615-635.
17. Grafe TU, Preininger D, Sztatecsny M, Kasah R, Dehling JM et al., 2012. Multimodal communication in a noisy environment: A case study of the Bornean rock frog Staurois parvus. PLoS One 7(5): e37965.
18. Gibson JS, Uetz GW, 2008. Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders I: Components of male seismic signals and mating success. Animal Behaviour 75: 1253-1262.
19. Hamilton WD, Zuk M, 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds:A role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.
20. Hebets EA, 2005. Attention-altering signal interactions in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi. Behavioral Ecology 16: 75-82.
21. Hebets EA, 2008. Seismic signal dominance in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa stridulans. Behavioral Ecology 19: 1258-1266.
22. Hebets EA, Papaj DR, 2005. Complex signal function: Developing a framework for testable hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57: 197-214.
23. Hebets EA, Stafstrom JA, Rodriguez RL, Wilgers DJ, 2011. Enigmatic ornamentation eases male reliance on courtship performance for mating success. Animal Behavior 81: 963-972.
24. Hebets EA, Uetz GW, 1999. Female responses to isolated signals from multimodal male courtship displays in the wolf spider genus Schizocosa(Araneae:Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour 57: 865-872.
25. Hebets EA, Uetz GW, 2000. Leg ornamentation and the efficacy of courtship display in four species of wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47: 280-286.
26. Hebets EA, Vink C, Sullivan-Beckers L, Rosenthal M, 2012. The dominance of seismic signaling and the evolution of signal complexity in the multimodal courtship displays of Schizocosa wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology in revision
27. Hill GE, 1991. Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 350: 337-339.
28. Husak J, Fox S, Van Den Bussche R, 2008. Faster male lizards are better defenders not sneakers. Animal Behaviour 75: 1725-1730.
29. Johnstone RA, 1996. Multiple displays in animal communication: 'backup signals' and 'multiple messages.' Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 351: 329-338.
30. Karino K, Ishiwatari T, Kudo H, Sato A, 2011. Female mate preference for a costly ornament in male guppies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociology 65: 1305-1315.
31. Kekäläinen J, Valkama H, Huuskonen H, Taskinen J, 2010. Multiple sexual ornamentation signals male quality and predicts female preference in minnows. Ethology 116: 895-903.
32. Künzler R, Bakker TCM, 2001. Female preference for single and combined traits in computer animated stickleback males. Behavioral Ecology 12: 681-685.
33. Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Cagniant C, Sorci G, 2005. Multiple sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks Pavo cristatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58: 552-557.
34. Madsen V, Balsby JS, Dabelsteen T, Osorno JL, 2004. Bimodal signaling of a sexually selected trait: Gular pouch drumming in the magnificent frigate bird. Condor 106: 156-160.
35. Maruska KP, Fernald RD, 2012. Contextual chemosensory urine signaling in an African cichlid fish. Journal of Experimental Biology 215: 68-74.
36. McClintock WJ, Uetz GW, 1996. Female choice and pre-existing bias: Visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour 52: 167-181.
37. Miller CL, Stratton CE, Miller PE, Hebets EA, 1998. Geographic variation in male courtship behavior and sexual isolation in wolf spiders of the genus Schizocosa. Animal Behaviour 56: 937-951.
38. Murai M, Backwell PRY, 2006. A conspicuous courtship signal in the fiddler crab Uca perplexa: Female choice based on display structure. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60: 736-741.
39. Neave N, McCarty K, Freynik J, Caplan N, Hoenekopp J et al., 2011. Male dance moves that catch a woman's eye. Biology Letters 7: 221-224.
40. Norton S, Uetz GW, 2005. Mating frequency in Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz) wolf spiders: Evidence for a mating system with female monogamy and male polygamy. Journal of Arachnology 33: 16-24.
41. Partan SR, Fulmer AG, Gounard MA, Redmond JE, 2010. Multimodal alarm behavior in urban and rural gray squirrels studied by means of observation and a mechanical robot. Current Zoology 56: 313-326.
42. Partan SR, Larco CP, Owens MJ, 2009. Wild tree squirrels respond with multisensory enhancement to conspecific robot alarm behaviour. Animal Behaviour 77: 1127-1135.
43. Partan S, Marler P, 1999. Behavior-communication goes multimodal.Science 283: 1272-1273.
44. Partan S, Marler P, 2005. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. The American Naturalist 166: 231-45.
45. Partan S, Yelda S, Price V, Shimizu T, 2005. Female pigeons, Columba livia, respond to multisensory audio/video playbacks of male courtship behaviour. Animal Behaviour 70: 957-966.
46. Preininger D, Boeckle M, Hödl W, 2009. Communication in noisy environments II: Visual signaling behavior of male foot-flagging frogs Staurois latopalmatus. Herpetologica 65: 166-173.
47. Rick IP, Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, 2011. Male red ornamentation is associated with female red sensitivity in sticklebacks. PLoS One 6: e25554.
48. Rosenthal MF, Hebets EA 2012. Resource heterogeneity interacts with courtship rate to influence mating success in the wolf spider Schizocosa floridana. Animal Behaviour in press.
49. Rowe C, 1999. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Animal Behaviour 58: 921-931.
50. Rundus AS, Santer RD, Hebets EA, 2010. Multimodal courtship efficacy of Schizocosa retrorsa wolf spiders: Implications of an additional signal modality. Behavioral Ecology 21: 701-707.
51. Rundus AS, Sullivan-Beckers L, Wilgers D, Hebets EA, 2011. Females are choosy in the dark: Context-dependent reliance on courtship components and its impact on fitness. Evolution 65: 268-282.
52. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44: 305-314.
53. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in the túngara frog. Science 269: 390-392.
54. Rybak F, Aubin T, Moulin B, Jallon JM, 2002. Acoustic communication in Drosophila melanogaster courtship: Are pulse- and sine-song frequencies important for courtship success? Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 987-996.
55. Saether SA, Fiske PJ, Kalas A, Gjul JM, 2000. Females of the lekking great snipe do not prefer males with whiter tails. Animal Behaviour 59: 273-280.
56. Scheffer SJ, Uetz GW, Stratton GE, 1996. Sexual selection, male morphology, and the efficiency of courtship signaling in two wolf spiders (Aranae: Lycosidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38: 17-23.
57. Shamble PS, Wilgers DJ, Swoboda KA, Hebets EA, 2009. Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology 20: 1242-1251.
58. Spencer KA, MacDougall-Shackleton SA, 2011. Indicators of development as sexually selected traits: The developmental stress hypothesis in context. Behavioral Ecology 22: 1-9.
59. Stoffer B, Walker SE, 2012. The use of multimodal communication in mate choice decisions by female house crickets Acheta domesticus. Animal Behaviour 83: 1131-1138.
60. Stratton GE, 2005. Evolution of ornamentation and courtship behavior in Schizocosa: Insights from a phylogeny based on morphology (Araneae, Lycosidae). Journal of Arachnology 33: 347-376.
61. Sullivan-Beckers L, Hebets EA, 2011. Modality-specific experience with female feedback increases the efficacy of courtship signaling in male wolf spiders. Animal Behavior 82: 1052-1057.
62. Takahashi M, Arita H, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M, Hasegawa T, 2008. Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour 75: 1209-1219.
63. Taylor PW, Roberts JA, Uetz GW, 2006. Mating in the absence of visual cues by Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz 1844) wolf spiders. Journal of Arachnology 34: 501-505.
64. Taylor RC, Klein BA, Ryan MJ, 2011. Inter-signal interaction and uncertain information in anuran multimodal signals. Current Zoology 57:153-161.
65. Toomey MB, McGraw KJ, 2012. Mate choice for a male carotenoid-based ornament is linked to female dietary carotenoid intake and accumulation. BMC Evolutionary Biology 12: 3-15.
66. Uetz GW, Clark DL, Roberts JA, Rector M, 2011. Effect of visual background complexity and light level on detection of visual signals of male Schizocosa ocreata wolf spiders by female wolf spider receivers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65: 753-761.
67. Uetz GW, Norton S, 2007. Preference for male traits in female wolf spiders varies with the choice of available males, female age and reproductive state. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61: 631-641.
68. Uetz GW, Roberts JA, 2002. Multisensory cues and multimodal communication in spiders: Insights from video/audio playback studies. Brain Behavior and Evolution 59: 222-230.
69. Uetz, GW, Roberts JA, Taylor PW, 2009. Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders I: Female responses to multimodal vs. unimodal male signals in two sibling wolf spider species. Animal Behaviour 278: 299-305.
70. Westneat DF, 2006. No evidence of current sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in a bird with high variance in mating success. The American Naturalist 167: 171-189.
71. Wiegmann DD, Morris M, 2005. Search behavior and mate choice. Recent Advances in Experimental and Theoretical Biology 1: 201-216.
72. Wilgers DJ, Hebets EA, 2011.Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Current Zoology 57: 175-186.
73. Wilgers DJ, Hebets EA, 2012. Age-related female mating decisions are condition dependent in a wolf spider. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 66: 29-38.
74. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR, 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 255: 1-6.
75. Vaccaro R, Uetz GW, Roberts JA, 2010. Courtship and mating behavior of the wolf spider Schizocosa bilineata. Journal of Arachnology 38: 452-459.
76. Zeyl JN, Laberge F, 2011. Multisensory signals trigger approach behavior in the fire-bellied toad Bombina orientalis: Sex differences and call specificity. Zoology 114: 369-377.
77. Zuk M, Johnsen TS, MacLarty T, 1995. Endocrine-immune interactions, ornaments and mate choice in red jungle fowl. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 260: 205-210.