Behavioral Ecology Vol. 12 No. 1: 59-64
© 2001 International Society for Behavioral Ecology
Female mate choice in a mating system dominated by male sexual coercion
a Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Padova, via Venezia 8, I-35135 Padova, Italy b Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Padova, via U. Bassi 58/b, I-35131 Padova, Italy
Address correspondence to A. Pilastro. E-mail: pilastro{at}civ.bio.unipd.it .
Received 11 June 1999; revised 10 November 1999; accepted 28 May 2000.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In poeciliid fishes, males can gain copulation either by courting females or through sexual coercion. In some species these two tactics coexist. However, in about half of the poeciliids, males do not display, females never cooperate during copulation and all matings are achieved by thrusting the intromittent organ toward the genital pore of apparently unaware females. In one of these species, the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), the probability of insemination is influenced by the time females are previously deprived of males, suggesting that females exert some control over the occurrence of mating even in a system apparently dominated by sexual coercion. In the present study we investigated the tendency of female mosquitofish to approach males in relation to their reproductive status and the time they were previously deprived of males. The tendency to approach males increased in females that were previously deprived of males and in females that had recently given birth. When allowed to choose between males, male-deprived females preferred larger males and normally pigmented over melanistic males. Females preferred groups of three males over a single male, whereas the preference for three males over a group of one male and two females was only marginally significant. Collectively, these results suggest that, even when coercive mating is the only tactic adopted by males, females may be able to influence the outcome of these attempts, and thus exert some control over the paternity of their offspring.
Key words: sexual selection, female choice, sexual coercion, Gambusia holbrooki, fish, mating tactics.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Interest in sexual selection has focused principally on two forms of interaction between and within the sexes, namely intrasexual competition for mates and intersexual mate choice (Andersson, 1994
). It is
increasingly recognized that, in some species, other aspects of intersexual
selection, such as sexual coercion, can be equally important in shaping the
mating system (Clutton-Brock and Parker,
1995). Theory predicts that conflicts of interest between the
sexes are likely to arise when males can obtain coercive matings
(Clutton-Brock and Parker,
1995; Parker,
1979; Trivers,
1972). Females may suffer direct costs due to unnecessary multiple
mating (e.g., disease transmission, risk of predation), harassment (e.g.,
reduced feeding efficiency), or physical damage from forced copulation. In
addition, if coercive copulation is frequent, this may limit the capacity of
females to take advantage of benefits arising from mate selection. If female
choice is costly and coercive matings frequent, one may expect that female
choice may eventually disappear, being undermined by this male mating
tactic.
Poeciliids, namely guppies and swordtails, are favorite subjects of sexual
selection studies, in particular those concerning mate choice and its role in
the maintenance of male secondary sex traits
(Houde, 1997). Because these
fishes have internal fertilization, it is important that females, after
choosing a mate, cooperate with the males for transferring sperm
(Hughes, 1985;
Liley, 1966). Poeciliid males
usually perform a sigmoid display in front of females to persuade them to
mate. A receptive female responds by swimming in a tight circle, exposing her
abdomen and facilitating insemination. Then the male introduces his long
copulatory organ, the gonopodium (derived from the modified anal fin), into
the female's genital pore (Houde,
1997). Yet, this is not the sole mechanism by which males can
inseminate a female. Encountering an unreceptive female, the male can
circumvent her reluctance to mate by directly inserting his gonopodium into
the genital tract of the apparently unaware female. The success of any single
coercive mating attempt is exceedingly low
(Pilastro et al., 1997;
Pilastro and Bisazza, 1999),
but males compensate with high frequencies of mating attempts, approximately
one per min in the species where it has been measured (Bisazza and Martin,
1995; Godin, 1995;
Magurran and Seghers, 1994).
Only virgin females and females that have just given birth are usually
responsive to male courtship, and a male often has to compete with other males
to gain access to females in this stage of their reproductive cycle
(Constantz, 1975,
1984). It has been recently
demonstrated that female guppies, Poecilia reticulata, which have
been deprived of males for a long time can also be receptive to males
(Pilastro and Bisazza, 1999).
In comparison, males can coercively mate at any time with any female in the
population. Following copulation with a gravid female, sperm migrate into
folds of the ovary and the genital tract where they can survive for months and
wait until a new batch of ova can be fertilized
(Constantz, 1989).
In many poeciliids, the two male mating tactics coexist and are often
associated with genetically determined morphological differences. Large males
court females to gain matings while small males sneak copulations
(Zimmerer and Kallman, 1989).
Receptive females usually show a preference for males with large size, large
ornaments, and high courtship activity, as in the guppy
(Houde, 1997). For reasons
that are not yet fully understood, in approximately half of the species, males
never court, females never cooperate and coercive mating is the only way males
achieve fertilization (Bisazza,
1993; Farr, 1989).
It is generally believed that female mate choice plays little or no role in
the mating system of these species (Bisazza and Martin, 1995;
Farr, 1989;
Kolluru and Joyner, 1997).
One of these species is the eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia
holbrooki. Male mosquitofish do not court and copulations result
exclusively from males forcibly inseminating females (Bisazza and Martin,
1995; McPeek, 1992). Males are
much smaller than females and they are particularly keen in approaching them
without being detected. Though most copulatory attempts are unsuccessful, the
estimated number of coercive inseminations received by a female probably
exceed 0.5 per day (Giacomello,
1995; Pilastro et al.,
1997). Previous studies have tended to dismiss the role of female
mate choice in this species. Bisazza and Martin (1991) found no significant
preference for large males by postpartum, male-deprived, or virgin females
using a classical binary choice apparatus. With a similar setup, Taylor et al.
(1996) found no preference for
the body coloration of males (melanistic vs. normally pigmented males). McPeek
(1992) reported female
preference for large males in a G. holbrooki population from Florida
(USA), but he failed to control for the natural tendency of mosquitofish to
shoal (preferably with conspecifics of similar size) especially after being
transferred to a novel place.
More recent studies have opened new perspectives on the role of female
preference in the mating system of poeciliids. First, it has been shown that
female selectivity for mates strongly depends on external factors, such as the
presence of a predator, that influence her perceived risks associated with
choice (Godin and Briggs,
1996). From this point of view, the experimental set up adopted in
the previous studies (Bisazza and Martin, 1991;
Taylor et al., 1996) may not
be optimal, because females were tested soon after being introduced into a
novel environment, and risks perceived by the female were not controlled for.
Second, recent studies on the copulatory success of males in relation to male
and female body sizes have shown that the probability that a female is
coercively inseminated is positively affected by the time she has been
previously deprived of males (Pilastro et
al., 1997). Nonetheless, all females, irrespective of their prior
male deprivation period, attempted to avoid the mating attempts of males.
Observations of male-female pairs did not reveal any significant behavioral
difference between short- and long-time male-deprived females, or any form of
explicit cooperation between male and female.
These results suggest that females can influence the probability of success of male coercive mating attempts, even when they do not obviously cooperate with males. This may be done, for instance, by staying close to a particular male, rather than fleeing or hiding immediately when approached by him. If so, females may exert a form of mate choice by favoring (or by not disfavoring) some male phenotypes over others. The possibility that females can control, at least to some extent, the outcome of sexual coercion opens a new perspective in our understanding of the dynamics of sexual conflicts. However, it is necessary to rule out other possible, non-adaptive explanations. For example, long-time deprived females may simply be less prompt to escape males.
The objective of the present study is to determine if female mosquitofish
exert some control over the coercive mating attempts of males and influence
the probability of being inseminated by a particular male. First, we studied
female proximity preferences in a choice apparatus designed to control for
possible social effects. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that females
show an increased tendency to stay close to males when deprived of males for a
long time. We also compared their approaching behavior with that of postpartum
females kept with males, which are inseminated by males with a frequency
similar to that of long-time deprived females
(Giacomello, 1995). Second, we
investigated whether male-deprived females had preferences for particular
types of males. Three preferences were tested: between males belonging to
their population and males with a new phenotype (melanistic males), between
large and small males, and between groups and single males. This last
experiment was repeated using females as stimulus fish in order to distinguish
social factors (e.g., a safety-in-group effect) from sexual motivation in
determining apparent preferences.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Mosquitofish used in this study originated from a feral population in a stream near Padova (Idrovia Padova—Venezia, Camin), Italy. They were maintained in heterosexual groups of 20-25 individuals in 150 l aquaria (temperature: 24-26°C; photoperiod: 0500-2100 h), and fed brine shrimps and commercial food flakes (SERA GVG mix, Heinsberg, Germany).
Proximity to males in relation to female reproductive condition
In this experiment, we quantified the tendency of females to approach males
according to their prior male-deprivation time and breeding status. One female
was introduced into the test compartment and seven companion females in one
side compartment and allowed to acclimatise for 12 h
(Figure 1a). The test
compartment was divided into three virtual sectors by vertical lines onto the
outside front. The test female could freely swim throughout the test
compartment and the observer was not visible to the experimental fish. Seven
males were then introduced in the stimulus compartment at the opposite end
from a lateral door that was opened remotely by the observer. In this
experiment, companion females, stimulus males, and the test female could see
each other. Stimulus fish as well as companion females were chosen without a
known bias from a large stock aquarium. It is therefore possible that the same
stimulus fish has been used more than once. Companion females and stimulus
males were placed, alternatively, on the left and right side of the choice
apparatus.
|
Three groups of females were tested: (1) non-deprived females (n = 12), which had been kept in aquaria with males at a 1:1 sex ratio for at least 2 months; (2) long time male-deprived females (n = 12), which had been kept in aquaria with only females for at least 2 months before being tested; and (3) postpartum females (n = 10), which had been previously kept with males and tested within 3 days after parturition. Two observation periods were carried out: before releasing the males into the stimulus compartment, the test female was observed for three bouts of 10 min, each separated by 20 min (pre-test). After a pause of 20 min, the males were then released into the stimulus compartment and the test female was observed for 30 min. During observations, we recorded every 15 s whether the test female was within 12 cm from the males' compartment. To control for possible side preferences, we used as a variable the difference between the times the test female was observed in the sector near the males' compartment before and after their introduction in the statistical analyses.
In order to exclude the possibility that male-deprived females approached the stimulus males just because they were attracted by the appearance of a novel group of fish (i.e., to discriminate between exploratory and sexual motivation), we carried out another 24 control replicates (12 with 2 months male-deprived female and 12 with non-deprived females) using seven females instead of the males. Proximity to the stimulus females' compartment was calculated as above.
Mate choice in male-deprived females
The following experiments were designed to quantify the female choice
between two stimulus fish presented simultaneously to her. Female mosquitofish
are gregarious. To make the test female perceive the aquarium as a safe
environment, we used a choice apparatus wherein three companion females were
always visible to the test female, in the rear of the test compartment
(Figure 1b). By means of
one-way mirrors and differential illumination, stimulus males were prevented
from seeing test and companion females. Stimulus males were simultaneously
presented to the test female on either side of the test compartment, by
allowing them to enter the stimulus compartment through a door opened remotely
by the observer.
All the test females used in this and the subsequent experiments were deprived of males for at least 2 months. We used male-deprived females because they showed a similar proximity preference for males to that of postpartum females (see results below), and are more easily obtained in the lab. Prior to testing, stimulus males were kept for some days in aquaria with a one-way mirror on one side to acclimatize them with their reflected image. Test females were introduced into the test compartment about 24 h before being tested. Twenty min before the test began, males were introduced into the end compartments and the test female was subsequently observed for 40 min. The position of the test female was registered every 15 s, and her preference was expressed as percentage of the time spent in the 12 cm sector near either male compartment out of the total time spent in sectors near both male compartments (Figure 1b).
To test preference for males of different body coloration, females were allowed to choose between three normally pigmented males and three melanistic males, belonging to a stock of melanistic eastern mosquitofish originally from Florida (USA) and maintained in our laboratory. We carried out 20 replicates with different fish. The size of the males ranged between 22 and 27 mm, SL. Within each replicate, males in the melanistic group were size-matched (± 0.5 mm) to the males in the wild type group. The two phenotypes were presented alternatively on the right and the left stimulus compartment. To test female preference for male size, three large (range: 27-29 mm) and three small males (range: 19-20 mm SL) were simultaneously presented to the female (n = 12). The stimulus males used in this and the following experiments were all normally pigmented. To study preference between different numbers of males, we allowed females to choose between a single male and a group of three males. Overall, the size of the males used ranged between 25 and 29 mm, but all males were of similar size (difference ± 0.5 mm SL, n = 10) within replicate.
Additional experiments were carried out to investigate the causes of preference for groups of males. For these experiments we used the same apparatus (Figure 1b), but we adopted a slightly different procedure that allowed us to reduce the duration of each replicate. In particular, the test females were introduced into the test compartment to acclimatize for 1 h before being tested. Then, stimulus fish were introduced into the two end compartments and the position of the females was recorded, every 15 s, for 30 min. Female preference was expressed as described before. We used three experimental arrangements: (1) a single male vs. a group of three males (n = 12); (2) a group of three males vs. a group of one male and two females (n = 12), and (3) one single male vs. a group of one male and two females (n = 12). The first experimental setup (one male vs. three males) was the same as in the previous experiment and was repeated in order to control that the shorter acclimation time did not affect the direction of the female preference. In the mixed stimulus groups containing one male and two females, the females were always larger than the male. Overall, all males had similar size within replicates, ranging between 26 and 28 mm, and differing less than 1 mm.
Where not otherwise stated, means ± SD are presented. Data from all
the experiments were tested for deviance from normality (all experiments,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov one sample test) and for the homogeneity of variance (first
experiment, Levene test). Since these assumptions were met in all cases
(p >.05), we used parametric tests (one-sample t test and
one-way ANOVA). Post-hoc comparison was done using Ryan's Q test
(Day and Quinn, 1989). All
probabilities are two-tailed. Statistical test were performed using SPSS
8.0.
Results
Proximity to males in relation to female reproductive condition
Male-deprived and postpartum females did not differ from each other in the
time spent close to the males' compartment and both differed significantly
from non-deprived females (one-way ANOVA, F2,31 = 4.815,
p =.015; Ryan's Q post-hoc comparison, p <.05;
Figure 2). When females,
instead of males, were presented to the test female, we found no significant
difference between deprived (X ± SD = 35.2 ± 7.1) and
non-deprived females (X ± SD = 42.9 ± 8.7) in the time they
spent near the stimulus females (t22 = 0.69, NS).
|
Mate preferences in male-deprived females
When presented to paired melanistic and wild-type males, females spent
significantly more time near wild-type males than expected by chance
(one-sample t test, t19 = 2.43, p =.025,
Figure 3a). When females were
allowed to choose between large and small males, they spent significantly more
time near the group of large males (one-sample t test:
t11 = 2.59, p =.025,
Figure 3b). Females that were
presented to a single male and a group of three males, preferred the larger
group over the single male (one-sample t test: t9
= 2.51, p =. 033, Figure
3c).
|
In the corollary experiment with the shorter acclimation time, females confirmed their preference for a group of three males over a single male (t11 = 2.21, p =.049; Figure 4a). The preference for trios of males was confirmed also in the second experiment of this series, where test females preferred trios of males over trios composed by one male and two females (t11 = 2.60, p =.025, Figure 4b). In the third experiment (Figure 4c), test females spent more time near the compartment containing two females and one male than near that containing only one male, although the difference was marginally nonsignificant (one-sample t test, t11 = 2.08, p =.06). This result was strongly influenced by a single female that spent all her time near the single male compartment. The other 11 females spent 69.7% (± 11.9 SD, range 53-94%) of their time near the compartment containing the group of one male and two females.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In those species in which males provide nothing but sperm, a female's reproductive success is unlikely to increase with the number of males she mates with, since each copulation involves several potential costs, for example, transmission of diseases, visibility to predators, or reduction of foraging efficiency (but see Zeh and Zeh, 1997
, for possible advantages of multiple inseminations).
Consequently, the best strategy for females in such a mating system is usually
to mate with the highest quality available partner(s) a minimum number of
times that will ensure the fertilization of all her eggs and then to refuse
further copulations. Coercive mating is believed to evolve in males to obtain
copulations when they are not chosen by females, and resistance in females is
seen as the attempt to avoid the costs associated with unnecessary copulations
(Clutton-Brock and Parker,
1995).
In practical terms, however, it is not always simple to distinguish female
effort to avoid unwanted copulation from mate assessment, since the female can
selectively resist copulatory attempts in order to select the most vigorous or
most persistent males, which are able to overcome their resistance
(Allen and Simmons, 1996;
Arnqvist, 1992;
Thornhill, 1980). Some of
these studies also showed that the different mechanisms of sexual selection
can be so tightly intermingled that it can be very difficult, and sometimes
impossible, to clearly separate them into well defined female choice, male
competition and coercive mating.
Mechanisms of sexual selection in the eastern mosquitofish, especially
those acting on body size, have been described previously (Bisazza et al.,
1989,
1996; Bisazza and Martin, 1991,
1995; Bisazza and Pilastro,
1997). In brief, small males had a strong advantage in coercive
copulation because they are less conspicuous when approaching the female from
behind and maneuver better when inserting the gonopodium. Male size relative
to female size explains nearly 77% of the variance of sneaking mating success.
Males showed a preference for large females or for those that recently
delivered young. Large males tended to be dominant and to outcompete small
ones for access to these high-quality females, especially at high population
densities and male-biased sex ratios. To simulate the effect of sexual
selection, Bisazza and Martin (1995) ran a computer simulation using
behavioral and demographic data from a wild population. The analysis suggested
that a small male mating advantage is expected to occur for 4/5 of the
breeding season in the population considered. As females never cooperate with
males during copulation, the above study credits only a marginal role to
female choice—females may under some circumstances indirectly favor
dominant males as mates (Bisazza and Martin, 1991;
McPeek, 1992). The results of
the present study, however, suggest that the picture may be more complex than
previously thought.
The first part of this study shows that, when deprived of males for a long
time (and probably under the risk of depleting their sperm stores) or close to
the fertilization of a new batch of ova, female mosquitofish show a clear
tendency to approach males. The increased insemination frequency in
male-deprived females observed in a previous study
(Pilastro et al., 1997) may be
simply explained by females progressively losing their ability to escape
coercive mating, for example by being less trained in burst swimming or in
detecting approaching males. In this study, however, the behavior of deprived
females was indiscernible from that of postpartum females kept with males
until a few min before being tested, thus suggesting that females seek the
proximity of males when sperm obtained by copulation is likely to be used
briefly after in next reproductive bout.
This interpretation also emerges from studies investigating the
lateralization of the central nervous system. Male mosquitofish that are
required to circumvent a barrier in order to reach females, tend to turn
around the barrier on the left and thereby observe the females with the right
eye. This preference disappears when there are males or no fish beyond the
barrier. The turning direction depends on motivational state, because males
that are not sexually motivated do not show such tendency
(Bisazza et al., 1997). In
another study, females were tested using males as targets: They turned more
frequently to the left to circumvent the barrier after 2 months of
deprivation, but not if deprived only for 3 weeks or kept with males
(Bisazza et al., 1998). This
suggests an increased sexual motivation of females that are deprived of males
for a long time.
In the second part of the current study, we demonstrated that approaches to
males were not random. Females choose to approach large males more often than
small ones, wild type more often than melanistic males, and group of males
more often than single individuals. Do these preferences result in a real
mating advantage for males whose characteristics match females' choice
criteria? Mating success of males was not measured in this study. Nonetheless,
possible indications can be derived extrapolating from the results of previous
studies (Giacomello, 1995;
Pilastri et al., 1997). In
particular, it has been shown that males kept with unreceptive females for 48
h were able to inseminate about 90% of females that were previously
male-deprived for 2 months. When female deprivation time was shorter (15-30
days), insemination frequency dropped to 35%. These results suggest that, even
if all females tried to avoid male coercive copulation attempts, variation in
male insemination success is likely to be influenced by female behavior.
Females' proximity preference may have an important influence on the mating
success of males with different phenotypes. A conclusive support to this
hypothesis could be obtained only through field experiments and paternity
tests.
An exhaustive analysis of the selective advantages of mate preferences
shown by female mosquitofish is beyond the scope of this study. Female
preferences for larger males in particular appear widespread in various taxa
(Andersson, 1994) and has been
reported for other poeciliid fishes
(Hughes, 1985;
Ptacek and Travis, 1997;
Reynolds and Gross, 1992;
Ryan and Wagner, 1987).
The presence of melanistic males, in spite of their reduced crypsis, has
raised the question of whether color polymorphism in mosquitofish populations
can be maintained through female mate choice. Previous studies on mosquitofish
have generally failed to show female preferences for particular male color
morphs or to clearly distinguish female mate choice from male competition or
shoaling behavior (Karplus and Algom,
1996; Martin,
1977; Nelson and Planes,
1993; Taylor et al.,
1996). In the current study, females spent more time near normally
pigmented males. Females may be avoiding the more conspicuous melanistic morph
because the latter may attract predators more readily, as is the case for
female guppies from populations with high predation pressure, which tend to
avoid brightly colored males because they attract more predators and expose
them to a greater risk (Breden and Stoner,
1987; Pocklington and Dill,
1995).
When given a choice, females prefer the vicinity of a group of males to a
single male. This experiment did not clarify if the preference served to
promote competition among rival males or to ensure a safer condition during
mating. Both aerial and aquatic predators of poeciliids prefer to catch
females (Pocklington and Dill,
1995; Trexler et al.,
1995); therefore, a "safety in group" hypothesis would
predict that females would prefer groups containing more females. An
additional experiment on group size indicated that females look for groups
containing more males rather than simply looking for groups of fish, although
the preference in this case was less pronounced.
One may wonder, then, why mosquitofish females do not simply cooperate
directly with males, as some other poeciliid species do, with over female
choice and male courting behavior, since the latter strategy is likely to be
more efficient in determining the paternity of the offspring and probably is
not associated with much greater costs. One reason may simply be that females
adopt a strategy of indirect mate choice
(Wiley and Poston, 1996) when
they cannot avoid sneaky inseminations by males. By using the selective
approach to males outlined in this study (i.e., discriminating between
different male phenotypes), females may ensure for their offspring both
preferred characteristics (e.g., a large body size) and the ability to obtain
sneaky copulations. Benefits associated with one phenotype may be extremely
variable. For instance, at the beginning of the breeding season, when
population density is low and sex ratio is female biased, groups are small and
composed largely of females and sneaking efficiency is probably the best
predictor of male mating success (Bisazza and Martin, 1995). In contrast, at
the end of the breeding season, population density is higher
(Zulian et al., 1995), many
males compete for females and a large body size increases the chances for a
male to obtain mates. At the time of insemination, probably females cannot
predict what situation their male off-spring will face at maturity, and both
large size and sneaking ability are likely to increase the future reproductive
success of their male offspring.
In addition, in order to have a high probability of inseminating females,
sneakers must perform about one mating attempt per min throughout the day, and
only vigorous males in optimal conditions can probably afford such a task
(Blanckenhorn et al., 1995).
Sneaking copulation through gonopodial thrusting requires a highly precise
coordination of sensory and motor organs and a rapidity of execution certainly
similar, if not greater, to that necessary for a male performing an elaborate
courting display. A female who stays close to males, but does not allow them
to easily inseminate her, adopts a mate selection strategy that is different
from that of typically receptive females choosing between displaying males.
Nonetheless, this strategy may confer to females the same advantages,
immediate and future, that have been proposed to explain the evolution of the
overt mate choice, such as access to parasite-free males with high foraging
and metabolic efficiency, and a high mating success of the offspring
(Andersson, 1994). Given that
the success of sneaky mating attempts increases exponentially with decreasing
size of the male (Bisazza and Martin, 1995), females that stay close to large
males (or to group of males) may be indeed selecting males with a
higher-than-average sneaky copulation ability, and not simply selecting the
smallest males in the population.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Luisa Tezzon for her help with the experiments. Jean-Guy Godin kindly provided comments that greatly improved an earlier version of the manuscript. A. Bisazza was supported by a MURST grant (60%) and Cofin1997 and A. Pilastro by a MURST grant Cofin1997. Fish used in this study were captured with a fishing permit for scientific research by the Regione Veneto. After the end of the experiments fish were released into capture place. Experiments were carried out in conformity with the relevant Italian laws (D.L. 116/27-01-92, C.M.S. 8/22-04-94).
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Allen GR, Simmons LW, 1996. Coercive mating, fluctuating asymmetry, and male mating success in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Anim Behav 52: 737-741.
Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Arnqvist G, 1992. Pre-copulatory fighting in a water strider: inter-sexual conflict or mate assessment? Anim Behav 43: 559-567.
Bisazza A, 1993. Male competition, female mate choice and sexual size dimorphism in poeciliid fishes. In: Behavioural ecology of fishes (Huntingford FA, Torricelli P, eds). Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Press; 257-286.
Bisazza A, Facchin L, Pignatti R, Vallortigara G, 1998. Lateralization of detour behaviour in poeciliid fish: the effect of species, gender and sexual motivation. Behav Brain Res 91: 157-164.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bisazza A, Marconato A, Marin G, 1989. Male mate preference in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology 83: 335-343.[Web of Science]
Bisazza A, Marin G, 1991. Male size and female mate choice in the eastern mosquitofish. Copeia 1991: 730-735.
Bisazza A, Marin G, 1995. Sexual selection and sexual size dimorphism in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces Poeciliidae). Ethol Ecol Evol 7: 169-183.
Bisazza A, Novarini N, Pilastro A, 1996. Male body size and male-male competition: interspecific variation in poeciliid fishes. Ital J Zool 63: 365-369.
Bisazza A, Pignatti R, Vallortigara G, 1997. Laterality in detour behaviour: interspecific variation in poeciliid fish. Anim Behav 54: 1273-1281.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bisazza A, Pilastro A, 1997. Small male mating advantage and reversed size dimorphism in poeciliid fishes. J Fish Biol 50: 397-406.
Blanckenhorn WU, Preziosi RF, Fairbairn DJ, 1995. Time and energy constraints and the evolution of sexual dimorphism—to eat or to mate? Evol Ecol 9: 369-381.
Breden F, Stoner G, 1987. Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidad guppy. Nature 329: 831-833.
Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA, 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49: 1345-1365.
Constantz GD, 1975. Behavioural ecology of mating in the male Gila topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae). Ecology 56: 966-973.[Web of Science]
Constantz GD, 1984. Sperm competition in Poeciliid fishes. In: Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (Smith RL, ed). Orlando: Academic Press; 465-485.
Constantz GD, 1989. Reproductive biology of Poeciliid fishes. In: Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae) (Meffe GK, Snelson FF, eds). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 33-50.
Day RW, Quinn GP, 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol Monogr 59: 433-463.[Web of Science]
Farr JA, 1989. Sexual selection and secondary differentiation in poeciliids: determinants of male mating success and the evolution of female choice. In: Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae) (Meffe GK, Snelson FF, eds). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 91-123.
Giacomello E, 1995. Dimorfismo maschile e successo riproduttivo in Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Padova, Italy: University of Padova.
Godin J-GJ, 1995. Predation risk and alternative mating tactics in male Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Oecologia 103: 224-229.[Web of Science]
Godin JGJ, Briggs SE, 1996. Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Anim Behav 51: 117-130.
Houde AE, 1997. Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hughes AL, 1985. Male size, mating success, and mating strategy in the mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (Poecilidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17: 271-278.[Web of Science]
Karplus I, Algom D, 1996. Polymorphism and pair formation in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Environ Biol Fish 45: 169-176.
Kolluru GR, Joyner JW, 1997. The influence of male body size and social environment on the mating behaviour of Phallichthys quadripunctatus (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Ethology 103: 744-759.[Web of Science]
Liley NR, 1966. Ethological isolating mechanisms in four sympatric species of poeciliid fishes. Behaviour Suppl 13: 1-197.
Magurran AE, Seghers BH, 1994. A cost of sexual
harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond
B 258:
89-92.
Martin RG, 1977. Density dependent aggressive advantage in melanistic male mosquitofish Gambusia affinis holbrooki (Girard). Fla Sci 40: 393-400.
McPeek MA, 1992. Mechanisms of sexual selection
operating on body size in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).
Behav Ecol 3:
1-12.
Nelson CM, Planes K, 1993. Female choice of nonmelanistic males in laboratory populations of the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Copeia 1993: 1143-1148.
Parker GA, 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (Blum MS, Blum NA, eds). New York: Academic Press; 123-166.
Pilastro A, Bisazza A, 1999. Insemination efficiency
of two alternative male mating tactics in the guppy (Poecilia
reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 266:
1887-1891.
Pilastro A, Giacomello E, Bisazza A, 1997. Sexual
selection for small size in male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).
Proc R Soc Lond B 264:
1125-1129.
Pocklington R, Dill LM, 1995. Predation on females or males: Who pays for bright male traits? Anim Behav 49: 1122-1124.
Ptacek MB, Travis J, 1997. Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 51: 1217-1231.[Web of Science]
Reynolds JD, Gross MR, 1992. Female mate preference
enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia
reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:
57-62.
Ryan MJ, Wagner MEJ, 1987. Asymmetries in mating
preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males.
Science 236:
595-597.
Taylor SA, Burt E, Hammond G, Releya K, 1996. Female mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis holbrooki) prefer normally pigmented males to melanistic males. J Comp Psychol 110: 260-266.[Web of Science]
Thornhill R, 1980. Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim Behav 28: 52-59.
Trexler JC, Temple RC, Travis J, 1995. Size selective predation of sailfin mollies by two species of herons. Oikos 69: 250-258.[Web of Science]
Trivers RL, 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (Campbell B, ed). London: Heinemann; 136-179.
Wiley RH, Poston J, 1996. Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50: 1371-1381.[Web of Science]
Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1997. The evolution of polyandry.2.
Post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc
Lond B 264:
69-75.
Zimmerer EJ, Kallman KD, 1989. Genetic basis for alternative reproductive tactics in the pigmy swordtail Xiphophorus nigrensis. Evolution 43: 1298-1307.[Web of Science]
Zulian E, Bisazza A, Marin G, 1995. Variations in male body size in natural populations of Gambusia holbrooki. Ethol Ecol Evol 7: 1-10.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Adler Sexual conflict in waterfowl: why do females resist extrapair copulations? Behav. Ecol., November 24, 2009; (2009) arp160v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. T. Kahn, B. Mautz, and M. D. Jennions Females prefer to associate with males with longer intromittent organs in mosquitofish Biol Lett, September 15, 2009; (2009) rsbl.2009.0637v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. B. M. Wong and M. McCarthy Prudent male mate choice under perceived sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquito fish Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2009; 20(2): 278 - 282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. A. Fernandez and M. R. Morris Mate choice for more melanin as a mechanism to maintain a functional oncogene PNAS, September 9, 2008; 105(36): 13503 - 13507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. S Wilson, C. H.L Condon, and I. A Johnston Consequences of thermal acclimation for the mating behaviour and swimming performance of female mosquito fish Phil Trans R Soc B, November 29, 2007; 362(1487): 2131 - 2139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Carter and R. S. Wilson Improving sneaky-sex in a low oxygen environment: reproductive and physiological responses of male mosquito fish to chronic hypoxia J. Exp. Biol., December 15, 2006; 209(24): 4878 - 4884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R Morris, O. Rios-Cardenas, and M Scarlett Tudor Larger swordtail females prefer asymmetrical males Biol Lett, March 22, 2006; 2(1): 8 - 11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||