Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 655–662 | Cite as

Male approach and female avoidance as mechanisms of population discrimination in sagebrush lizards

Original Article

Abstract

Reproductive isolation and speciation can result from female choice for particular males. Isolation can also result, however, from male mating preferences or from aggressive encounters which then influence mating decisions. In this study, we use laboratory discrimination trials to study the behavioral mechanisms of population discrimination in sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus). We specifically ask three questions about population-level discrimination: (1) Does it vary in strength in relation to the geographic distance between the populations? (2) Is it more apparent in inter- or intra-sexual interactions? (3) Does it take the form of attraction or avoidance? We ran 890 trials that tested the ability of male and female sagebrush lizards from one population to discriminate their own population from four other populations. In addition, we utilized both sequential and simultaneous-choice designs, which enabled us to distinguish between attraction and avoidance. We found that most population-level discrimination was exhibited by male lizards preferring to associate with particular types of females, as well as female avoidance of particular types of males. The strength and direction of both discriminations depended on the populations compared and on whether the tests were conducted as sequential- or simultaneous-choice tests, producing a complex relationship between geographic distance and behavioral discrimination. Our results suggest that there are roles for male attraction and female avoidance in population discrimination, reproductive isolation, and speciation.

Keywords

Mate choice Male choice Sexual selection Reproductive isolation Geographic differences Sceloporus graciosus Population discrimination Choice tests 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank B. Bowling, J. Campuzano, J. Feit, K. Morgan, G. O’Campo, L. Sheldahl, and D. Zierten for help with running the discrimination trials. We also thank T. Greenfield, M. Hall, M. Halloy, M. Kerr-Valentic, K. Lacy, and D. Rosseto for help with collecting lizards. Further thanks to W. Cooper, L. Fishman, J. Moretz, K. Morgan, J. Thompson, P. Zani, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. This research was supported by a NSF research training grant in genetic mechanisms of evolution to ANB, an Explorers Club grant awarded to ANB, as well as NSF grant DEB-9720641 to EPM. This research conformed to all laws of the USA, in which the research was done (animal care protocol 98-102A).

References

  1. Abell AJ (1997) Estimating paternity with spatial behaviour and DNA fingerprinting in the striped plateau lizard, Sceloporus virgatus (Phrynosomatidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnegard ME, Kondrashov AS (2004) Sympatric speciation by sexual selection alone is unlikely. Evolution 58:222–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird TA, Fox SF, McCoy JK (1997) Population differences in the roles of size and coloration in intra- and intersexual selection in the collared lizard, Crotaphytus collaris: influence of habitat and social organization. Behav Ecol 8:506–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman PW, Gilson LN, Ferguson JWH (2001) Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim Behav 61:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bissell AN (2001) Population differences and behavior of lizards: on the road to speciation? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, ORGoogle Scholar
  6. Boake CRB (2000) Flying apart: mating behavior and speciation. Bioscience 50:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butlin RK (1987) Species, speciation, and reinforcement. Am Nat 130:461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B (2002) Uncoupling direct and indirect components of female choice in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:14897–14902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter CC, Ferguson GW (1977) Variation and evolution of stereotyped behavior in reptiles. In: Gans C, Tinkle DW (eds) Biology of the reptilia, vol 7. Academic, London, pp 335–554Google Scholar
  10. Cooper WE Jr (1985) Female residency and courtship intensity in a territorial lizard, Holbrookia propinqua. Amphib-Reptil 6:69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1989) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1997) “Patterns of speciation in Drosophila” revisited. Evolution 51:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doutrelant C, McGregor PK, Oliveira RF (2001) The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav Ecol 12:283–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dzieweczynski TL, Rowland WJ (2004) Behind closed doors: use of visual cover by courting male three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav 68:465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endler JA, Houde AE (1995) Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49:456–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson GW (1971) Observations on the behavior and interactions of two sympatric Sceloporus in Utah. Am Midl Nat 86:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabor CR, Ryan MJ (2001) Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male silfin mollies. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gavrilets S (2003) Models of speciation: what have we learned in 40 years? Evolution 57:2197–2215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavrilets S, Waxman D (2002) Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:10533–10538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleason JM, Ritchie MG (1998) Evolution of courtship song and reproductive isolation in the Drosophila willistoni species complex: do sexual signals diverge the most quickly? Evolution 52:1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene CM (2001) Habitat selection, social interactions and their population consequences. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton PS, Sullivan BK (2005) Mate choice in ornate tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus: a multivariate analysis. Anim Behav 69:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lande R (1991) Isolation by distance in a quantitative trait. Genetics 128:443–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. LeBas NR, Marshall NJ (2000) The role of colour in signaling and male choice in the agamid lizard Ctenophorus ornatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Littlejohn MJ (1999) Variation in advertisement calls of anurans across zonal interactions. In: Foster SA, Endler JA (eds) Geographic variation in behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 209–233Google Scholar
  26. Martins EP (1991) Individual and sex differences in the use of the push-up display by the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Anim Behav 41:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martins EP (1993) Contextual use of the push-up display by the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Anim Behav 45:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martins EP, Bissell AN, Morgan KK (1998) Population differences in a lizard communicative display: evidence for rapid change in structure and function. Anim Behav 56:1113–1119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore AJ, Moore PJ (1988) Female strategy during mate choice: threshold assessment. Evolution 42:387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olsson M (1993) Male preference for large females and assortative mating for body size in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ord TJ, Blumstein DT, Evans CS (2001) Intrasexual selection predicts the evolution of signal complexity in lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orrell KS, Jenssen TA (2002) Male mate choice by the lizard Anolis carolinensis: a preference for novel females. Anim Behav 63:1091–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rice WR, Hostert EE (1993) Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years? Evolution 47:1637–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowland WJ, Bolyard KJ, Jenkins JJ, Fowler J (1995) Video playback experiments on stickleback mate choice: female motivation and attentiveness to male colour cues. Anim Behav 49:1559–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan MJ, Perrill SA, Wilczynski W (1992) Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am Nat 139:1370–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schäfer MA, Uhl G (2005) Sequential mate encounters: female but not male body size influences female remating behavior. Behav Ecol 16:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seehausen O, van Alphen J (1999) Can sympatric speciation by disruptive sexual selection explain rapid evolution of cichlid diversity in Lake Victoria? Ecol Letters 2:262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheldahl L, Martins EP (2000) Territorial behavior in the western fence lizard. Herpetologica 56:469–479Google Scholar
  39. Sinervo B, Adolph SC (1994) Growth plasticity and thermal opportunity in Sceloporus lizards. Ecology 75:776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SPSS (2004) SPSS for Windows, Rel. 12.0.2. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Stebbins RC (1985) Peterson field guides. Western amphibians and reptiles. Houghton Mifflin Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Tinkle DW, Dunham AE, Congdon JD (1993) Life-history and demographic variation in the lizard Sceloporus graciosus: a long-term study. Ecology 74:2413–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tokarz RR (1992) Male mating preference for unfamiliar females in the lizard, Anolis sagrei. Anim Behav 44:843–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tokarz RR (1995) Mate choice in lizards: a review. Herpetol Monogr 9:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verrell PA (1999) Geographic variation in sexual behavior: sex, signals, and speciation. In: Foster SA, Endler JA (eds) Geographic variation in behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 262–286Google Scholar
  46. Via S (2001) Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. Trends Ecol Evol 16:381–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiens JJ (1997) Phylogeny of the spiny lizards (Sceloporus) based on molecular and morphological evidence. Herpetol Monogr 11:1–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wong BBM, Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG (2005) Species recognition by male swordtails via chemical cues. Behav Ecol 16:818–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wong BBM, Jennions MD, Keogh JS (2004) Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifier. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wymann MN, Whiting MJ (2003) Male mate preference for large size overrides species recognition in allopatric flat lizards (Platysaurus broadleyi). Acta Ethol 6:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology1210 University of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Center for the Integrative Study of Animal BehaviorIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations