The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: A meta-analysis

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 311-319

  Dougherty, Liam R ^a   Shuker, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

choice test; experimental design; interspecific choice; mate choice; mating preferences; meta analysis

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; INTERPOPULATION VARIATION; INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION; MATE CHOICE; MEASUREMENT METHOD; META-ANALYSIS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 84938696109     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/aru125     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Andersson MB. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
2. Barry KL, Holwell GI, Herberstein ME. 2010. Multimodal mate assessment by male praying mantids in a sexually cannibalistic mating system. Anim Behav. 79:1165-1172.
3. Barry KL, Kokko H. 2010. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim Behav. 80:163-169.
4. Basolo AL. 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proc Biol Sci. 259:307-311.
5. Bateson M, Healy SD. 2005. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:659-664.
6. Beatty C, Franks D. 2012. Discriminative predation: simultaneous and sequential encounter experiments. Curr Zool. 58:649-657.
7. Beckers OM, Wagner WE Jr. 2013. Parasitoid infestation changes female mating preferences. Anim Behav. 85:791-796.
8. Beckers OM, Wagner WE Jr. 2011. Mate sampling strategy in a field cricket: evidence for a fixed threshold strategy with last chance option. Anim Behav. 81:519-527.
9. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. 1994. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 50:1088-1101.
10. Belles-Isles JC, Cloutier D, FitzGerald GJ. 1990. Female cannibalism and male courtship tactics in threespine sticklebacks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 26:363-368.
11. Björklund M. 1997. Are 'comparative methods' always necessary? Oikos. 80:607-612.
12. Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution. 57:717-745.
13. Boake CRB, Poulsen T. 1997. Correlates versus predictors of courtship success: courtship song in Drosophila silvestris and D. heteroneura. Anim Behav. 54:699-704.
14. Booksmythe I, Jennions MD, Backwell PRY. 2011. Male fiddler crabs prefer conspecific females during simultaneous, but not sequential, mate choice. Anim Behav. 81:775-778.
15. Chamberlain SA, Hovick SM, Dibble CJ, Rasmussen NL, Van Allen BG, Maitner BS, Ahern JR, Bell-Dereske LP, Roy CL, Meza-Lopez M. 2012. Does phylogeny matter? Assessing the impact of phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analysis. Ecol Lett. 15:627-636.
16. Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 112:155-159.
17. Cook SE, Vernon JG, Bateson M, Guilford T. 1994. Mate choice in the polymorphic African swallowtail butterfly, Papilio dardanus: male-like females may avoid sexual harassment. Anim Behav. 47:389-397.
18. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. 2006. Sexual selection and conditiondependent mate preferences. Curr Biol. 16:R755-R765.
19. Coyne JA, Elwyn S, Rolán-Alvarez E. 2005. Impact of experimental design on Drosophila sexual isolation studies: direct effects and comparison to field hybridization data. Evolution. 59:2588-2601.
20. Darwin CR. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, UK: John Murray.
21. David M, Cézilly F. 2011. Personality may confound common measures of mate-choice. PLoS One. 6:e24778.
22. Doherty JA. 1985. Phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus DeGeer: comparisons of choice and no-choice paradigms. J Comp Physiol A. 157:279-289.
23. Dougherty LR, Shuker DM. 2014. Pre-copulatory sexual selection in the seed bug Lygaeus equestris: a comparison of choice and no-choice paradigms. Anim Behav. 89:207-214.
24. Duval S, Tweedie R. 2000. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 56:455-463.
25. Gabor CR, Krenz JD, Jaeger RG. 2000. Female choice, male interference, and sperm precedence in the red-spotted newt. Behav Ecol. 11:115-124.
26. Gershman SN, Sakaluk SK. 2009. No Coolidge effect in decorated crickets. Ethology. 115:774-780.
27. Gibson RM. 1996. Female choice in sage grouse: the roles of attraction and active comparison. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 39:55-59.
28. Gibson RM, Langen TA. 1996. How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol. 11:468-470.
29. Gillingham MA, Richardson DS, Løvlie H, Moynihan A, Worley K, Pizzari T. 2009. Cryptic preference for MHC-dissimilar females in male red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Proc Biol Sci. 276:1083-1092.
30. Hadfield JD, Nakagawa S. 2010. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J Evol Biol. 23:494-508.
31. Halliday TR. 1983. The study of mate choice. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 3-32.
32. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 327:557-560.
33. Hoikkala A, Aspi J. 1993. Criteria of female mate choice in Drosophila littoralis, D. Montana, and D. ezoana. Evolution. 47:768-777.
34. Houde AE. 1987. Mate choice based upon naturally occurring color-pattern variation in a guppy population. Evolution. 41:1-10.
35. Hurt CR, Stears-Ellis S, Hughes KA, Hedrick PW. 2004. Mating behaviour in the endangered Sonoran topminnow: speciation in action. Anim Behav. 67:343-351.
36. Itzkowitz M, Draud MJ, Barnes JL, Haley M. 1998. Does it matter that male beaugregory damselfish have a mate preference? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 42:149-155.
37. Jamieson IG, Colgan PW. 1989. Eggs in the nests of males and their effect on mate choice in the three-spined stickleback. Anim Behav. 38:859-865.
38. Janetos AC. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 7:107-112.
39. Jang Y, Gerhardt HC. 2006. Divergence in female calling song discrimination between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:150-158.
40. Jennings JH, Mazzi D, Ritchie MG, Hoikkala A. 2011. Sexual and postmating reproductive isolation between allopatric Drosophila Montana populations suggest speciation potential. BMC Evol Biol. 11:68.
41. Jennions MD, Møller AP. 2002. Relationships fade with time: a meta-analysis of temporal trends in publication in ecology and evolution. Proc Biol Sci. 269:43-48.
42. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 72:283-327.
43. Jordan LA, Brooks RC. 2012. Recent social history alters male courtship preferences. Evolution. 66:280-287.
44. Kacelnik A, Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Aw J. 2011. Darwin's 'tug-of-war' vs. starlings' horse-racing': how adaptations for sequential encounters drive simultaneous choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 65:547-558.
45. King B, Saporito K, Ellison J, Bratzke R. 2005. Unattractiveness of mated females to males in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 57:350-356.
46. Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengeresen K. 2013. Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
47. Kullmann H, Klemme B. 2007. Female mating preference for own males on species and population level in Chromaphyosemion killifishes (Cyprinodontiformes, Nothobranchiidae). Zoology (Jena). 110:377-386.
48. Lehmann GUC. 2007. Density-dependent plasticity of sequential mate choice in a bushcricket (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Aust J Zool. 55:123-130.
49. Lehmann GUC, Lehmann AW. 2008. Bushcricket song as a clue for spermatophore size? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:569-578.
50. MacLaren RD, Rowland WJ. 2006. Differences in female preference for male body size in Poecilia latipinna using simultaneous versus sequential stimulus presentation designs. Behaviour. 143:273-292.
51. Martel V, Boivin G. 2011. Do choice tests really test choice? J Insect Behav. 24:329-336.
52. McNamara KB, Jones TM, Elgar MA. 2004. Female reproductive status and mate choice in the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus. J Insect Behav. 17:337-352.
53. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL. 2012. The (mis)concept of species recognition. Trends Ecol Evol. 27:421-427.
54. Milinski M, Bakker TCM. 1992. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc Biol Sci. 250:229-233.
55. Miller CW, Svensson EI. 2014. Sexual selection in complex environments. Annu Rev Entomol. 59:427-445.
56. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 151:264-9, W64.
57. Moore AJ, Breed MD. 1986. Mate assessment in a cockroach, Nauphoeta cinerea. Anim Behav. 34:1160-1165.
58. Moore AJ, Moore PJ. 1988. Female strategy during mate choice: threshold assessment. Evolution. 42:387-391.
59. Nakagawa S, Poulin R. 2012. Meta-analytic insights into evolutionary ecology: an introduction and synthesis. Evol Ecol. 26:1085-1099.
60. Owen MA, Rohrer K, Howard RD. 2012. Mate choice for a novel male phenotype in zebrafish, Danio rerio. Anim Behav. 83:811-820.
61. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 20:289-290.
62. Parri S, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J. 1997. Female choice for male drumming in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Anim Behav. 53:305-312.
63. Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am Nat. 167:28-42.
64. R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
65. Reading KL, Backwell PR. 2007. Can beggars be choosers? Male mate choice in a fiddler crab. Anim Behav. 74:867-872.
66. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. 2000. MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
67. Rosenblum EB. 2008. Preference for local mates in a recently diverged population of the lesser earless lizard (Holbrookia maculata) at White Sands. J Herpetol. 42:572-583.
68. Rowland WJ. 1982. Mate choice by male sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav. 30:1093-1098.
69. Rutstein AN, Brazill-Boast J, Griffith SC. 2007. Evaluating mate choice in the zebra finch. Anim Behav. 74:1277-1284.
70. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1993. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution. 47:647-657.
71. Schöfl G, Dill A, Heckel DG, Groot AT. 2011. Allochronic separation versus mate choice: nonrandom patterns of mating between fall armyworm host strains. Am Nat. 177:470-485.
72. Shackleton MA, Jennions MD, Hunt J. 2005. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 58:1-8.
73. Shelly TE, Bailey WJ. 1992. Experimental manipulation of mate choice by male katydids: the effect of female encounter rate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30:277-282.
74. Shuker DM. 2010. Sexual selection: endless forms or tangled bank? Anim Behav. 79:e11-e17.
75. Suk HY, Choe JC. 2002. Females prefer males with larger first dorsal fins in the common freshwater goby. J Fish Biol. 61:899-914.
76. Tomaru M, Oguma Y. 2000. Mate choice in Drosophila melanogaster and D. sechellia: criteria and their variation depending on courtship song. Anim Behav. 60:797-804.
77. Valone TJ, Nordell SE, Giraldeau L-A, Templeton JJ. 1996. The empirical question of thresholds and mechanisms of mate choice. Evol Ecol. 10:447-455.
78. Verrell PA. 1995. Males choose larger females as mates in the salamander Desmognathus santeelah. Ethology. 99:162-171.
79. Viechtbauer W. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 36:1-48.
80. Wagner WE. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim Behav. 55:1029-1042.
81. Wagner WE Jr, Murray A, Cade W, 1995. Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female field crickets, Gryllus integer. Anim Behav. 49:1269-1281.
82. Werner NY, Lotem A. 2006. Experimental evidence for male sequential mate preference in a lekking species. Ethology. 112:657-663.
83. Wong BB, Jennions MD. 2003. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc Biol Sci. 270(1 Suppl):S36-S38.
84. Wong BB, Jennions MD, Keogh JS. 2004. Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 56:253-256.
85. Wong BB, Svensson PA. 2009. Strategic male signalling effort in a desertdwelling fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:543-549.
86. Wood D, Ringo JM. 1980. Male mating discrimination in Drosophila melanogaster, D. simulans and their hybrids. Evolution. 34:320-329.
87. Xu J, Wang Q. 2009. A polyandrous female moth discriminates against previous mates to gain genetic diversity. Anim Behav. 78:1309-1315.