Mate sampling and choosiness in the sand goby

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 280, Issue 1765, 2013, Pages

  Lindström, Kai ^a   Lehtonen, Topi K ^b  

^a ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Mate searching; Mating strategy; Sampling cost; Sexual selection; Time constraint

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BODY SIZE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; PERCIFORM; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SAMPLING; SAND; SEXUAL SELECTION;

FICUS OBTUSIFOLIA; POMATOSCHISTUS MINUTUS;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PERCIFORMES; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; PERCIFORMES; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 84894858677     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0983     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997 Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72, 283-327. (doi:10. 1111/j.1469-185X.1997.tb00015.x)
2. Wagner Jr WE. 1998 Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55, 1029-1042. (doi:10. 1006/anbe.1997.0635)
3. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, 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)
4. Qvarnström A. 2001 Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 5-7. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)02030-9)
5. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. 2006 Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16, R755-R765. (doi:10. 1016/j.cub.2006.08.022)
6. Chaine AS, Lyon BE. 2008 Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319, 459-462. (doi:10.1126/science.1149167)
7. Real LA. 1990 Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136, 376-404. (doi:10.1086/285103)
8. Gibson RM, Langen TA. 1996 How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 468-470. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10050-1)
9. Luttbeg B. 1996 A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behav. Ecol. 7, 451-460. (doi:10.1093/beheco/7.4.451)
10. Valone TJ, Nordell SE, Giraldeau LA, Templeton JJ. 1996 The empirical question of thresholds and mechanisms of mate choice. Evol. Ecol. 10, 447-445. (doi:10.1007/BF01237729)
11. Wiegmann DD, Real LA, Capone TA, Ellner S. 1996 Some distinguishing features of models of search behavior and mate choice. Am. Nat. 147, 188-204. (doi:10.1086/285846)
12. Luttbeg B. 2002 Assessing the robustness and optimality of alternative decision rules with varying assumptions. Anim. Behav. 63, 805-814. (doi:10. 1006/anbe.2001.1979)
13. Hutchinson JMC, Halupka K. 2004 Mate choice when males are in patches: optimal strategies and good rules of thumb. J. Theor. Biol. 231, 129-151. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.009)
14. Wiegmann DD, Seubert SM, Wade GA. 2010 Mate choice and optimal search behavior: fitness returns under the fixed sample and sequential search strategies. J. Theor. Biol. 262, 596-600. (doi:10. 1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.033)
15. Wiegmann DD, Weinersmith KL, Serbert SM. 2010 Multi-attribute mate choice decisions and uncertainty in the decision process: a generalized sequential search strategy. J. Math. Biol. 60, 543-572. (doi:10.1007/s00285-009-0274-7)
16. Charnov EL. 1976 Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol. 9, 129-136. (doi:10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-X)
17. Dale S, Rinden H, Slagsvold T. 1992 Competition for a mate restricts mate search of female pied flycatchers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30, 165-176. (doi:10.1007/BF00166699)
18. Bakker TCM, Milinski M. 1991 Sequential female choice and the previous male effect in sticklebacks. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 205-210. (doi:10.1007/ BF00166402)
19. Rand AS, Bridarolli ME, Dries L, Ryan MJ. 1997 Light levels influence female choice in Túngara frogs: predation risk assessment. Copeia 1997, 447-450.
20. Bonachea LA, Ryan MJ. 2011 Localization error and search costs during mate choice in Túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Ethology 117, 56-62. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01843.x)
21. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA. 2003 Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 14, 771-779. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arg075)
22. Härdling R, Kokko H. 2005 The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7, 697-715.
23. Wiegmann DD, Mukhopadhyay K, Real LA. 1999 Sequential search and the influence of male quality on female mating decisions. J. Math. Biol. 39, 193-216. (doi:10.1007/s002850050168)
24. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2009 Females decide whether size matters: plastic mate preferences tuned to the intensity of male-male competition. Behav. Ecol. 20, 195-199. (doi:10.1093/beheco/ arn134)
25. Healey MC. 1971 Gonad development and fecundity of the sand goby, Gobius minutus Pallas. T. Am. Fish. Soc. 100, 520-526. (doi:10.1577/1548- 8659(1971)100,520:GDAFOT.2.0.CO;2)
26. Lehtonen T, Lindström K. 2004 Changes in sexual selection resulting from novel habitat use in the sand goby. Oikos 104, 327-335. (doi:10.1111/j. 0030-1299.2004.12489.x)
27. Lehtonen TK. 2012 Signal value of male courtship effort in a fish with paternal care. Anim. Behav. 83, 1153-1161. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.040)
28. Forsgren E. 1997 Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Anim. Behav. 53, 267-276. (doi:10. 1006/anbe.1996.0374)
29. Forsgren E. 1992 Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. Am. Nat. 140, 1041-1049.
30. 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. (doi:10.1007/ s002650000246)
31. Svensson O, Kvarnemo C. 2005 The importance of sperm competition risk and nest appearance for male behavior and female choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav. Ecol. 16, 1042-1048. (doi:10.1093/beheco/ari085)
32. Forsgren E. 1997 Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 1283-1286. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0177)
33. Lindström K, St. Mary CM, Pampoulie C. 2006 Sexual selection for male parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 46-51. (doi:10.1007/s00265-005- 0138-0)
34. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2007 Mate compatibility, parental allocation and fitness consequences of mate choice in Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 1581-1588. (doi:10.1007/s00265- 007-0390-6)
35. Lehtonen TK, Wong BBM. 2009 Should females prefer males with elaborate nests? Behav. Ecol. 20, 1015-1019. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arp091)
36. Forsgren E, Kvarnemo C, Lindström K. 1996 Mode of sexual selection determined by resource abundance in two sand goby populations. Evolution 50, 646-654. (doi:10.2307/2410838)
37. Lehtonen TK, Wong BBM, Lindström K. 2010 Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biol. Lett. 6, 21-23. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0558)
38. Järvi-Laturi M, Lehtonen TK, Pampoulie C, Lindström K. 2008 Parental care behaviour of sand gobies is determined by habitat related nest structure. Behaviour 145, 39-50. (doi:10.1163/ 156853908782687197)
39. Hughes KA, Du L, Rodd FH, Reznick D. 1999 Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 58, 907-916. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1225)
40. Ward AJW, Hart PJB. 2003 The effects of kin and familiarity on interactions between fish. Fish Fish. 4, 348-358. (doi:10.1046/j.1467-2979.2003.00135.x)
41. Zajitschek SRK, Evans JP, Brooks R. 2006 Independent effects of familiarity and mating preferences for ornamental traits on mating decisions in guppies. Behav. Ecol. 17, 911-916. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arl026)
42. Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2005 How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol. Rev. 80, 559-575. (doi:10.1017/S1464793105006809)
43. Kangas N, Lindström K. 2001 Male interactions and female mate choice in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Anim. Behav. 61, 425-430. (doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1596)
44. Boughman JW. 2001 Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411, 944-948. (doi:10.1038/35082064)
45. Holveck MJ, Riebel K. 2010 Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 153-160. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2009.1222)
46. Candolin U. 2003 The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78, 575-595. (doi:10.1017/ S1464793103006158)
47. Bro-Jørgensen J. 2010 Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 292-300. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.11.003)
48. Lehtonen TK, Rintakoski S, Lindström K. 2007 Mate preference for multiple cues: interplay between male and nest size in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav. Ecol. 18, 696-700. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arm032)
49. Sobel JM, Chen GF, Watt LR, Schemske DW. 2010 The biology of speciation. Evolution 64, 295-315. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00877.x)
50. Lindström K, Kangas N. 1996 Egg presence, egg loss, and female mate preferences in the sand goby (Pomatoschistus minutus). Behav. Ecol. 7, 213-217. (doi:10.1093/beheco/7.2.213)