Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luttbeg, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Luttbeg, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

A Comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice

Barney Luttbeg

Center for Population Biology, University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA

ABSTRACT

Models of mate choice tactics have assumed that females randomly encounter males when collecting information and the information is perfect. Empirical observations of four bird species show that females selectively visit males and repeat visits to males before mating. This suggests that the assumptions of previous models have been too restrictive. An alternative model of information gathering and mate choice, which relaxes the assumptions of random encounters and perfect information, is presented. In this Comparative Bayes model, the decision of when and from whom to collect information is made using Bayesian estimates of each male's quality. Predictions from the model are that: (1) the occurrence of mate assessment will increase as initial uncertainty about the quality of males increases, as the cost of gathering information decreases, and as the signal perceived by the female becomes a better representation of males' actual qualities; (2) the occurrence of repeat visits to males will be highest when signals from males are of medium reliability; and (3) the decision of which male to assess will depend on the estimated qualities of males, prior certainty about each male's quality, the reliability of each male's signal, and the costs of assessment. Simulations compare the fitness outcomes of the Comparative Bayes tactic to other mate choice tactics. The fitness from the Comparative Bayes tactic is significantly higher than from the fixed threshold tactic and than from the best-of-n tactic when the cost of assessment is low. [Behav Ecol 7: 451–460 (1996)]

Key words: assessment, mate choice, value of information.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
E. J. Collins, J. M. McNamara, and D. M. Ramsey
Learning rules for optimal selection in a varying environment: mate choice revisited
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2006; 17(5): 799 - 809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
B. Luttbeg
Female mate assessment and choice behavior affect the frequency of alternative male mating tactics
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 239 - 247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
G. L. Patricelli, J. A. C. Uy, and G. Borgia
Female signals enhance the efficiency of mate assessment in satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus)
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 297 - 304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
C. G. Murphy and H. C. Gerhardt
Mate sampling by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa)
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2002; 13(4): 472 - 480.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
P. V. Switzer and D. A. Cristol
Avian prey-dropping behavior. I. The effects of prey characteristics and prey loss
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 1999; 10(3): 213 - 219.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.