Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 59–64 | Cite as

Female courtship in the Banggai cardinalfish: honest signals of egg maturity and reproductive output?

  • Niclas Kolm
Original Article


Despite the vast literature on male courtship behaviour, little is known about the function and information content of female courtship behaviour. Female courtship behaviour may be important in many species, particularly where both sexes invest heavily in the offspring, and if such behaviours contain honest information regarding a female’s potential reproductive investment, they may be particularly important in male mate choice. Using observations of two female courtship behaviours (the “rush” and the “twitch”) from experimental pairings in the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni), I addressed the question of whether these courtship behaviours contained information on female reproductive output (clutch weight) and egg maturity (proximity to spawning), traits commonly associated with male mate choice. I especially focused on the importance of these courtship behaviours in relation to other female characters, such as size and condition, using multiple regression. I found that one of these behaviours, the rush, was strongly associated with fecundity, whereas size, condition and the twitch were not. Further, I found that the “twitch” behaviour was associated with how close to actual spawning a female was. The results suggest that female courtship behaviour may convey highly important information in a mate choice context. I discuss the adaptive value of honest information in female courtship behaviour in light of these results.


Female courtship display Honest information Differential allocation Male mate choice 



I thank Jens Olsson for help with collection of behavioural data. Comments by Ben Sheldon, Anders Berglund, Anna Qvarnström, Claudia Fricke, Urban Friberg, Sarah Robinson-Wolrath, Göran Arnqvist, Anssi Laurila and three anonymous referees helped to improve earlier drafts. This study was financed partly by the Zoological Foundation and Inez Johanssons Foundation.


  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Badyaev AV, Qvarnström A (2002) Putting sexual traits into the context of an organism: a life-history perspective in studies of sexual selection. Auk 119:301–310Google Scholar
  3. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2003) Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv Stud Behav 32:131–167Google Scholar
  4. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986) Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:301–307Google Scholar
  5. Bonsall RW, Michael RP (1980) The externilization of vaginal fatty acids by the female rhesus monkey. Chem Ecol 6:499–509Google Scholar
  6. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant DM (1988) Lifetime reproductive success of house martins. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 173–188Google Scholar
  8. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burley N (1988) The differential allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am Nat 132:611–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Côté IM, Hunte W (1989) Male and female choice in the redlip blenny: why bigger is better. Anim Behav 38:78–88Google Scholar
  12. 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 137:567–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Honek A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66:483–492Google Scholar
  15. Howard RD (1988) Sexual selection on male body size and mating behaviour in American toads, Bufo americanus. Anim Behav 36:1796–1808Google Scholar
  16. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC (1996) Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382–1391Google Scholar
  17. Jones IL, Hunter FM (1993) Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous bird. Nature 362:238–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kokko H (1998) Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1871–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 357:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolm N (2001) Females produce larger eggs for larger males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2229–2234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolm N (2002) Male size determines reproductive output in a paternal mouth-brooding fish. Anim Behav 63:727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kraak SBM, Bakker TCM (1998) Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav 56:859–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I (1996) The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol Evol 11:404–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLennan DA (1995) Male mate choice based upon female nuptial coloration in the brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans (Kirtland). Anim Behav 50:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mosseau TA, Fox CW (eds) (1998) Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Okuda N, Takeyama T, Yanagisawa Y (1997) Age-specific filial cannibalism in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rowland WJ, Baube CL, Horan TT (1991) Signalling of sexual receptivity by pigmentation pattern in female sticklebacks. Anim Behav 42:243–249Google Scholar
  28. Sandvik-Widemo M (2003) Mutual mate choice in the deep snouted pipefish Syngnatus typhle. PhD Thesis, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Sargent CR, Rush VN, Wisenden BD, Yan HY (1998) Courtship and mate choice in fishes: integrating behavioral and sensory ecology. Am Zool 38:82–96Google Scholar
  30. Shuster SM (1981) Sexual selection in the Socorro isopod, Thermospaeroma thermophilum (Cole) (Crustacea: Peracarida). Anim Behav 29:698–707Google Scholar
  31. StatSoft Inc. (2001) STATISTICA for Windows, Computer program manual. Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  32. Sumner IT, Travis J, Johnson CD (1994) Methods of female fertility advertisement and variation among males in responsiveness in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna). Copeia 94:27–34Google Scholar
  33. Vagelli A (1999) The reproductive biology and early ontogeny of the mouthbrooding banggai cardinalfish, Pterapogon kauderni (Perciformes, Apogonidae). Environ Biol Fish 63:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiewandt TA (1982) Evolution of nesting patterns in Iguanine lizards. In: Burkhardt GM, Rand AS (eds) Iguanas of the world, their behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Noyes, Park Ridge, NJ, pp 119–141Google Scholar
  35. Wootton RJ (1974) Changes in the courtship behaviour of female three-spined sticklebacks between spawning. Anim Behav 22:850–855Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Ecology, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations