Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 11, pp 2071–2078 | Cite as

Female choice over short and long distances: neighbour effects

  • Sophia CallanderEmail author
  • Michael D. Jennions
  • Patricia R. Y. Backwell
Original Paper


Fiddler crabs live at high densities and mate-searching females encounter many males at varying distances. Who is the ideal neighbour for a male? There could be a trade-off if having neighbours that invest more in sexual signals increases the rate at which females initially move towards a focal male, but thereafter decrease the likelihood that he is chosen rather than his neighbour. We used robotic crabs to test whether female choice for focal males (identical claw size/courtship wave rate) varied depending on the relative investment in sexual signals of their two neighbours and the distance at which she first saw the males. The neighbours’ phenotype did not affect which of two focal males she initially approached from long-range (50 cm). When a female initially saw a trio of males at a close-range (20 cm), she preferentially chose the focal male over neighbours that invested less in sexual signals (smaller claw/slower wave rate), but did not show a preference for the focal male over neighbours that invested more in sexual signals (larger claw/faster wave rate). However, a female that started to approach a focal male with neighbours that invest more in sexual signals from 50 cm was significantly less likely to choose the focal male than when she first saw the trio at 20 cm. Our results suggest that the initial distance at which males are seen partly determines how neighbours’ sexual signals affect male mating success. In general, if larger males can retain smaller neighbours they might therefore increase their mating success.


Female choice Distance Coalition Neighbours Fiddler crab Sexual selection 



We thank Isobel Booksmythe, Tim Maricic, Richard Milner, Brian Mautz and Rachel Slatyer for their assistance in the field and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Our work was supported by an A.N.U. PhD Scholarship (SC) and the Australian Research Council (PRYB and MDJ).


  1. Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2004) Coalition among male fiddler crabs. Nature 430:417. doi: 10.1038/430417a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. doi: 10.1007/s002650050258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson M, Healy SD (2005) Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 20:659–664. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.08.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bee MA (2008) Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs. Anim Behav 75:1781–1791. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.032 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booksmythe I, Detto T, Backwell PRY (2008) Female fiddler crabs settle for less: the travel costs of mate choice. Anim Behav 76:1775–1781. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE (2009) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol 24:400–407. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christy JH (2003) Reproductive timing and larval dispersal of intertidal crabs: the predator avoidance hypothesis. Rev Chil Hist Nat 76:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen JA (1984) Sexual selection and the psychophysics of female choice. Z Tierpsychol 64:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Detto T, Jennions MD, Backwell PRY (2010) When and why do territorial coalitions occur? Experimental evidence in a fiddler crab. Am Nat 175:119–125. doi: 10.1086/651588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durães R, Loiselle BA, Parker PG, Blake JG (2009) Female mate choice across spatial scales: influence of lek and male attributes on mating success of blue-crowned manakins. Proc R Soc B 276:1875–1881. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1752 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988) Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36:1247–1249. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80090-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchinson JMC (2005) Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biol Rev 80:73–92. doi: 10.1017/S1464793104006554 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jennions MD, Backwell PRY (1998) Variation in courtship rate in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes: is it related to male attractiveness? Behav Ecol 9:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kostarakos K, Hartbauer M, Römer H (2008) Matched filters, mate choice and the evolution of sexually selected traits. PLoS ONE 3:e3005. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leonard AS, Hedrick AV (2009) Male and female crickets use different decision rules in response to mating signals. Behav Ecol 20:1175–1184. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leonard AS, Hedrick AV (2010) Long-distance signals influence assessment of close-range mating displays in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Biol J Linn Soc 100:856–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mhatre N, Balakrishnan R (2006) Male spacing behaviour and acoustic interactions in a field cricket: implications for female mate choice. Anim Behav 72:1045–1058. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan SG, Christy JH (1995) Adaptive significance of the timing of larval release by crabs. Am Nat 145:457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan SG, Christy JH (1997) Planktivorous fishes as selective agents for reproductive synchrony. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 209:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murai M, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2009) The cost of reliable signalling: experimental evidence for predictable variation among males in a cost-benefit trade-off between sexually selected traits. Evolution 63:2363–2371. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00726.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy CG (2008) Assessment of distance to potential mates by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). J Comp Psy 122:264–273. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.122.3.264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy CG, Gerhardt HC (2002) Mate-sampling by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). Behav Ecol 13:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oh KP, Badyaev AV (2010) Structure of social networks in a passerine bird: consequences for sexual selection and the evolution of mating strategies. Am Nat 176:E80–E89. doi: 10.1086/655216 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patricelli GL, Krakauer AH (2009) Tactical allocation of effort among multiple signals in sage grouse: an experiment with a robotic female. Behav Ecol 21:97–106. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollack GS (1988) Selective attention in an insect auditory neuron. J Neurosci 8:2635–2639PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reaney LT (2009) Female preference for male phenotypic traits in a fiddler crab: do females use absolute or comparative evaluation? Anim Behav 77:139–143. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.20 08.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reaney LT, Backwell PRY (2007) Temporal constraints and female preference for burrow width in the fiddler crab, Uca mjoebergi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1515–1521. doi: 10.1007/s00265-007-0383-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reaney LT, Sims RA, Sims SWM, Jennions MD, Backwell PRY (2008) Experiments with robots explain synchronized courtship in fiddler crabs. Curr Biol 18: R62-R63. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.047 and video link
  31. Richardson C, Lengagne T (2010) Multiple signals and male spacing affect female preference at cocktail parties in treefrogs. Proc R Soc B 277:1247–1252. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1836 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Römer H, Krusch M (2000) A gain-control mechanism for processing of chorus sounds in the afferent auditory pathway of the bushcricket Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera; Tettigoniidae). J Comp Physiol A 186:181–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (1989) Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian. J Comp Physiol A 166:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution and behaviour. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun L, Wilczynski A, Rand S, Ryan MJ (2000) Trade-off in short- and long-distance communication in tungara (Physalaemus pustulosus) and cricket (Acris crepitans) frogs. Behav Ecol 11:102–109. doi: 10.1093/beheco/11.1.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wollerman L (1999) Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim Behav 57:529–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophia Callander
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael D. Jennions
    • 1
  • Patricia R. Y. Backwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Evolution, Ecology & Genetics, Research School of BiologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations