The role of courtship behavior and size in mate preference in the sex-role-reversed gulf pipefish, syngnathus scovelli

Ethology

Volumn 119, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 692-701

  Partridge, Charlyn ^a   Boettcher, Anne ^b   Jones, Adam G ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; COURTSHIP; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MORPHOLOGY; POLYANDRY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE COST; ROLE REVERSAL; SEX ROLE; SEXUAL SELECTION; TELEOST;

SYNGNATHUS SCOVELLI;

EID: 84879793776     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/eth.12110     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Amundsen, T. & Forsgren, E. 2001: Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 13155-13160.
2. Andersson, M. 1994: Sexual Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Berglund, A. 1995: Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour 132, 213-218.
4. Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 2001a: Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav. Ecol. 12, 402-406.
5. Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 2001b: Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim. Behav. 61, 345-350.
6. Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 2003: Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv. Study Behav. 32, 131-167.
7. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Svensson, I. 1986a: Reversed sex role and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29, 209-215.
8. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Svensson, I. 1986b: Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19, 301-307.
9. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Bernet, P. 1997: Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40, 145-150.
10. Berglund, A., Widemo, M. S. & Rosenqvist, G. 2005: Sex-role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamentation, competitive males in a pipefish. Behav. Ecol. 16, 649-655.
11. Bolland, J. & Boettcher, A. A. 2005: Population structure and reproductive characteristics of the Gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Estuaries 28, 957-965.
12. Clutton-Brock, T. 2007: Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318, 1882-1885.
13. Coleman, S. W., Patricelli, G. L. & Borgia, G. 2004: Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428, 742-745.
14. Costanzo, K. & Monteiro, A. 2007: The use of chemical cues and visual cues in the butterfly, Bicyclus anyana. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 845-851.
15. Cumming, J. M. 1994: Sexual selection and the evolution of dance fly mating systems (Diptera: Empididae; Emidinae). Can. Entomol. 126, 907-920.
16. Doucet, S. M. & Montgomerie, R. 2003: Multiple sexual ornaments in satin bowerbird: ultraviolet plumage and bowers signal different aspects of male quality. Behav. Ecol. 14, 503-509.
17. Drickamer, L. C., Gowaty, P. A. & Wagner, D. M. 2003: Free mutual mate preference in house mice affect reproductive success and offspring performance. Anim. Behav. 65, 105-114.
18. Elias, D. O., Maddison, W. P., Peckmezian, C., Girard, M. B. & Mason, A. C. 2012: Orchestrating the score: complex multimodal courtship in the Habronattus coecatus group of Habronattus jumping spider (Araneae: Salticide). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 105, 522-547.
19. Fuller, R. & Berglund, A. 1996: Behavioral responses of a sex-role reversed pipefish to a gradient of perceived predation risk. Behav. Ecol. 7, 69-75.
20. Gagliano, M. & McCormick, M. 2007: Maternal condition influences phenotypic selection on offspring. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 174-182.
21. Gowaty, P. A., Drickamer, L. C. & Schmid-Holmes, S. 2003: Male house mice produce few offspring with lower viability and poorer performance when mated to females they do not prefer. Anim. Behav. 65, 95-103.
22. Griggio, M., Valera, F., Casas, A. & Pilatro, A. 2005: Males prefer ornamented females: a field experiment of male choice in the rock sparrow. Anim. Behav. 69, 1243-1250.
23. 14C]-alpha amino isobutyric acid. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 69, 603-604.
24. Hout, A. 1902: Recherches sue les poissons lophobranches. Ann. Sci. Nat. 14, 19-88.
25. Jennions, M. & Petrie, M. 1997: Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72, 283-327.
26. Jones, A. G. & Avise, J. C. 1997: Microsatellite analysis of maternity and the mating system in the Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli), a species with male pregnancy and sex-role reversal. Mol. Ecol. 6, 203-213.
27. Jones, A. G., Rosenqvist, G., Berglund, A. & Avise, J. C. 1999: The genetic mating system of a sex-role reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46, 357-365.
28. Jones, A. G., Walker, D. & Avise, J. C. 2001: Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 268, 2531-2535.
29. Jones, A. G., Rosenqvist, G., Berglund, A. & Avise, J. C. 2005: The measurement of sexual selection using Bateman's principles: an experimental test in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 874-884.
30. Kjorsvik, E., Hoehne-Reitan, K. & Reitan, K. I. 2003: Egg and larval quality criteria as predictive measures for juvenile production in turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.). Aquaculture 227, 9-20.
31. Kokko, H. 1997: Evolutionary stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41, 99-107.
32. Kokko, H. & Johnstone, R. A. 2002: Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signaling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 357, 319-330.
33. Kokko, H. & Monaghan, P. 2001: Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 4, 159-165.
34. Kvarnemo, C., Mobley, K. B., Partridge, C., Jones, A. G. & Ahnesjö, I. 2011: Evidence of paternal nutrient provisioning in the pipefish Syngnathus typhle. J. Fish Biol. 78, 1725-1737.
35. LeBas, N. R. & Marshall, N. J. 2000: The role of colour signalling and mate choice in the agamid lizard Ctenophorus ornatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 267, 445-452.
36. Leiner, V. M. 1934: Der Osmostisches Druch in den Bruttaschen der Syngnathiden. Zool. Anz. 108, 278-298.
37. Linton, J. R. & Soloff, B. L. 1964: The physiology of the brood pouch of the male seahorse (Hippocampus erectus). Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 14, 45-61.
38. Maynard Smith, J. & Harper, D. 2003: Animal Signals. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
39. Monteiro, N., da Natividade Vieira, M. & Almada, V. C. 2002: The courtship behaviour of the pipefish Nerophis lumbriciformis: reflections of an adaptation to intertidal life. Acta Ethol. 4, 109-111.
40. Paczolt, K. A. & Jones, A. G. 2010: Post-copulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature 464, 401-404.
41. Partridge, C., Shardo, J. & Boettcher, A. 2007: Osmoregulatory role of the brood pouch in the euryhaline Gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 147, 556-561.
42. Partridge, C., Boettcher, A. & Jones, A. G. 2010: Short-term exposure to a synthetic estrogen disrupts male mating opportunity in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Horm. Behav. 58, 800-807.
43. Quast, W. D. & Howe, N. R. 1980: The osmotic role of the brood pouch in the pipefish Syngnathus scovelli. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 67, 675-678.
44. Ripley, J. & Foran, C. 2009: Direct evidence for embryonic uptake of paternally-derived nutrients in two pipefish (Syngnathuidae: Syngnathus spp.). J. Comp. Physiol. B. 179, 325-333.
45. Rollmann, S. M., Houck, L. D. & Feldhoff, R. C. 1999: Proteinacious pheromone affecting female receptivity in a terrestrial salamander. Science 285, 1907-1909.
46. Rosenthal, G., Fitzsimmons, J. N., Woods, K. U., Gerlach, G. & Fisher, H. S. 2011: Tactical release of a sexually-selected pheromone in a swordtail fish. PLoS ONE 6, e16994.
47. Sandvik, M., Rosenqvist, G. & Berglund, A. 2000: Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 267, 2151-2155.
48. Silva, K., Monteiro, N. M., Vieira, M. N. & Almada, V. C. 2006: Reproductive behaviour of the black-striped pipefish, Syngnathus abaster (Pisces; Syngnathidae). J. Fish Biol. 69, 1860-1896.
49. Torres, R. & Velando, A. 2005: Male preference for female foot colour in the socially monogamous blue-footed booby, Sula nebouxii. Anim. Behav. 69, 59-65.
50. Vincent, A., Ahnesjö, I., Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 1992: Pipefish and seahorses: are they all sex role reversed? Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 237-241.
51. Vincent, A., Berglund, A. & Ahnesjö, I. 1995: Reproductive ecology of five pipefish species in one eelgrass meadow. Environ. Biol. Fishes 44, 347-361.
52. Watanabe, S., Kaneko, T. & Watanabe, Y. 1999: Immunocytochemical detection of mitochondria-rich cells in the brood pouch epithelium of the pipefish, Syngnathus schelegeli: structural comparison with mitochondria-rich cells in the gills and larval epidermis. Cell Tissue Res. 295, 141-149.
53. Wilgers, D. J. & Hebets, E. A. 2011: Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Curr. Zool. 57, 175-186.
54. Wilson, A. B., Ahnesjö, I., Vincent, A. & Meyer, A. 2003: The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57, 1374-1386.
55. Wong, B. M. & Svensson, P. A. 2009: Strategic male signaling effort in a desert-dwelling fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 543-549.