The description of mate choice

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 301-310

  Edward, Dominic A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

acceptance threshold; choosiness; mate choice; mating rate; preference; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ARRAY; COMPLEXITY; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; TAXONOMY; TERMINOLOGY; THRESHOLD;

EID: 84938698046     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/aru142     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Andersson MB. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Backwell PRY, Passmore NI. 1996. Time constraints and multiple choice criteria in the sampling behaviour and mate choice of the fiddler crab, Uca annulipes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:407-416.
3. Bailey NW. 2008. Love will tear you apart: different components of female choice exert contrasting selection pressures on male field crickets. Behav Ecol. 19:960-966.
4. Bailey NW. 2011. Mate choice plasticity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: effects of social experience in multiple modalities. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 65:2269-2278.
5. Basolo AL. 1998. Evolutionary change in a receiver bias: a comparison of female preference functions. Proc Biol Sci. 265:2223-2228.
6. Beckers OM, Wagner WE. 2011. Mate sampling strategy in a field cricket: evidence for a fixed threshold strategy with last chance option. Anim Behav. 81:519-527.
7. Bleu J, Bessa-Gomes C, Laloi D. 2012. Evolution of female choosiness and mating frequency: effects of mating cost, density and sex ratio. Anim Behav. 83:131-136.
8. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 76:305-339.
9. Brooks R. 2002. Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism. Genetica. 116:343-358.
10. Brooks R, Endler JA. 2001. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution. 55:1644-1655.
11. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD. 2005. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution. 59:871-880.
12. Brown GR, Laland KN, Mulder MB. 2009. Bateman's principles and human sex roles. Trends Ecol Evol. 24:297-304.
13. Byers JA, Wiseman PA, Jones L, Roffe TJ. 2005. A large cost of female mate sampling in pronghorn. Am Nat. 166:661-668.
14. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 78:575-595.
15. Castellano S, Cermelli P. 2011. Sampling and assessment accuracy in mate choice: a random-walk model of information processing in mating decision. J Theor Biol. 274:161-169.
16. Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE. 2009. Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol. 24:400-407.
17. Cooley JR, Marshall DC. 2004. Thresholds or comparisons: Mate choice criteria and sexual selection in a periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Behaviour. 141:647-673.
18. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. 2006. Sexual selection and conditiondependent mate preferences. Curr Biol. 16:R755-R765.
19. Crowley PH, Travers SE, Linton MC, Cohn SL, Sih A, Sargent RC. 1991. Mate density, predation risk, and the seasonal sequence of mate choices-A dynamic game. Am Nat. 137:567-596.
20. Dosen LD, Montgomerie R. 2004. Female size influences mate preferences of male guppies. Ethology. 110:245-255.
21. Dugatkin LA. 1998. Genes, copying, and female mate choice: shifting thresholds. Behav Ecol. 9:323-327.
22. Dunn PO, Whittingham LA. 2007. Search costs influence the spatial distribution, but not the level, of extra-pair mating in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:449-454.
23. Edward DA, Chapman T. 2011. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 26:647-654.
24. Engqvist L, Sauer KP. 2002. A life-history perspective on strategic mating effort in male scorpionflies. Behav Ecol. 13:632-636.
25. Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG. 2006. Hungry females show stronger mating preferences. Behav Ecol. 17:979-981.
26. Forsgren E. 1997. Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Anim Behav. 53:267-276.
27. Fowler-Finn KD, Rodriguez RL. 2013. Repeatability of mate preference functions in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Anim Behav. 85:493-499.
28. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc Biol Sci. 268:531-539.
29. Gerhardt HC, Tanner SD, Corrigan CM, Walton HC. 2000. Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol. 11:663-669.
30. Gray DA, Cade WH. 1999. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution. 53:848-854.
31. Guevara-Fiore P, Stapley J, Krause J, Ramnarine IW, Watt PJ. 2010. Male mate-searching strategies and female cues: how do male guppies find receptive females? Anim Behav. 79:1191-1197.
32. Halliday T. 1983. The study of mate choice. In: Bateson PPG, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 3-32.
33. Hedrick A, Weber T. 1998. Variance in female responses to the fine structure of male song in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Behav Ecol. 9:582-591.
34. Hoefler CD, Guhanarayan G, Persons MH, Rypstra AL. 2009. The interaction of female condition and mating status on male-male aggression in a wolf spider. Ethology. 115:331-338.
35. Houle D, Kondrashov AS. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc Biol Sci. 269:97-104.
36. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK. 1987. Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice, and sexual selection. Am Nat. 130:91-112.
37. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD. 2005. Female mate choice as a conditiondependent life-history trait. Am Nat. 166:79-92.
38. 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.
39. Janetos AC. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice-A theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 7:107-112.
40. 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.
41. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution. 50:1382-1391.
42. Judge KA, Tran KC, Gwynne DT. 2010. The relative effects of mating status and age on the mating behaviour of female field crickets. Can J Zool. 88:219-223.
43. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. 2011. Sexual selection and sperm quantity: metaanalyses of strategic ejaculation. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 86:863-884.
44. Kirkpatrick M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution. 36:1-12.
45. Kirkpatrick M. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in evolution of mating preferences. Evolution. 50:2125-2140.
46. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357:319-330.
47. Kokko H, Mappes J. 2005. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution. 59:1876-1885.
48. Kokko H, Mappes J. 2013. Multiple mating by females is a natural outcome of a null model of mate encounters. Entomol Exp Appl. 146:26-37.
49. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc Biol Sci. 270:653-664.
50. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 37:43-66.
51. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 78:3721-3725.
52. Lenton AP, Francesconi M. 2011. Too much of a good thing? Variety is confusing in mate choice. Biol Lett. 7:528-531.
53. Lynch KS, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W. 2005. Plasticity in female mate choice associated with changing reproductive states. Anim Behav. 69:689-699.
54. Matessi G, Carmagnani C, Griggio M, Pilastro A. 2009. Male rock sparrows differentially allocate nest defence but not food provisioning to offspring. Behaviour. 146:209-223.
55. Milner RNC, Detto T, Jennions MD, Backwell PRY. 2010. Experimental evidence for a seasonal shift in the strength of a female mating preference. Behav Ecol. 21:311-316.
56. Murphy CG, Gerhardt HC. 2000. Mating preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, for two properties of male advertisement calls. Evolution. 54:660-669.
57. Narraway C, Hunt J, Wedell N, Hosken DJ. 2010. Genotype-by-environment interactions for female preference. J Evol Biol. 23:2550-2557.
58. Naulty F, Harty H, Hayden TJ. 2013. Freedom to choose: unconstrained mate-searching behaviour by female fallow deer (Dama dama). Folia Zool. 62:143-154.
59. Owens IPF, Thompson DBA. 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc R Soc Lond B. 258:93-99.
60. Pachevo K, Dawson JW, Jutting M, Bertram SM. 2013. How age influences phonotaxis in virgin female Jamaican field crickets (Gryllus assimilis). PeerJ. 1:e130.
61. Parker GA. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson PPG, editor. Mate choice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 141-166.
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. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences .1. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution. 45:1422-1430.
64. Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature. 405:344-347.
65. Ratterman NL, Rosenthal GG, Carney GE, Jones AG. 2014. Genetic variation and covariation in male attractiveness and female mating preferences in Drosophila melanogaster. G3 (Bethesda). 4:79-88.
66. Real L. 1990. Search theory and mate choice .1. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat. 136:376-405.
67. Reynolds JD, Gross MR. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice-is there a lek paradox. Am Nat. 136:230-243.
68. Ritchie MG. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93:14628-14631.
69. Ritchie MG, Saarikettu M, Hoikkala A. 2005. Variation, but no covariance, in female preference functions and male song in a natural population of Drosophila Montana. Anim Behav. 70:849-854.
70. Rodriguez RL, Boughman JW, Gray DA, Hebets EA, Hobel G, Symes LB. 2013a. Diversification under sexual selection: the relative roles of mate preference strength and the degree of divergence in mate preferences. Ecol Lett. 16:964-974.
71. Rodriguez RL, Hallett AC, Kilmer JT, Fowler-Finn KD. 2013b. Curves as traits: genetic and environmental variation in mate preference functions. J Evol Biol. 26:434-442.
72. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T. 2005. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am Nat. 165(Suppl 5):S5-18.
73. Schwartz JJ, Huth K, Hutchin T. 2004. How long do females really listen? Assessment time for female mate choice in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Anim Behav. 68:533-540.
74. Servedio MR, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution. 60:674-685.
75. Seubert SM, Wade GA, Wiegmann DD. 2011. The variability of male quality and female mate choice decisions: second-order stochastic dominance and the behavior of searchers under a sequential search strategy. J Math Biol. 63:1121-1138.
76. Sheldon BC. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol. 15:397-402.
77. South SH, Arnqvist G, Servedio MR. 2012. Female Preference for Male Courtship Effort Can Drive the Evolution of Male Mate Choice. Evolution. 66:3722-3735.
78. Tinghitella RM, Weigel EG, Head M, Boughman JW. 2013. Flexible mate choice when mates are rate and time is short. Ecol Evol. doi: 10.1002/ ece3.666.
79. Valone TJ, Nordell SE, Giraldeau LA, Templeton JJ. 1996. The empirical question of thresholds and mechanisms of mate choice. Evol Ecol. 10:447-455.
80. Wagner WE. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim Behav. 55:1029-1042.
81. Wagner WE, Murray AM, Cade WH. 1995. Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female field crickets, Gryllus integer. Anim Behav. 49:1269-1281.
82. Widemo F, Sæther SA. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:26-31.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. Wiley RH, Poston J. 1996. Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution. 50:1371-1381.
86. Zhou YH, Kelly JK, Greenfield MD. 2011. Testing the fisherian mechanism: examining the genetic correlation between male song and female response in waxmoths. Evol Ecol. 25:307-329.