Females prefer males with superior fighting abilities but avoid sexually harassing winners when eavesdropping on male fights
- 615 Downloads
Selection imposed by male competition (intrasexual selection) and female choice (intersexual selection) can be con- or discordant. Specifically, females may or may not prefer mating with dominant males, and direct costs of interacting with dominant (and possibly more harassing) males have been suggested to explain avoidance of dominant males. Here, we exemplify that inter- and intrasexual selection may normally act in the same direction, but can be temporarily conflicting when social information becomes available. Using video playback techniques, we presented females of the Mexican livebearing fish Poecilia mexicana with two size-matched males and established association preferences. Half of the females could then observe the same two males fight and establish dominance, while control females saw both males side by side, but physically separated, and female preferences were subsequently re-evaluated. Females in the control group showed a significant preference for future winners in the subsequent testing, confirming an innate or acquired preference for male traits that are indicative of physical superiority, even when body size as a choice criterion is excluded. When allowed to eavesdrop on male fights, however, females did not show a preference for observed winners and even decreased time spent with them relative to the control treatment in which no fight was shown. A subsequent experiment found contest winners to show elevated levels of sexual behavior, so we argue that the temporary offset of the intrinsic female preference for dominant males after having observed a fight is indeed driven by direct costs females expect from more harassing contest winners.
KeywordsFemale choice Social learning Sexual conflict Non-independent mate choice Male competition
H. Geupel helped with animal care, and P. Slattery and R. Riesch kindly commented on previous manuscript drafts. The present study was financially supported by the research funding program “LOEWE—Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-ökonomischer Exzellenz” of Hesse's Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts, the German Research Foundation (DFG; PL 470/3–1) and the Presidential Office of the J.W. Goethe University of Frankfurt (Nachwuchswissenschaftler im Fokus).
The experiments reported here comply with the current laws of Germany (approved by Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt V-54-19c-20/15-F104/Anz.18).
- Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Bierbach D, Klein M, Sassmannshausen V, Schlupp I, Riesch R, Parzefall J, Plath M (2012) Divergent evolution of male aggressive behaviour: another reproductive isolation mechanism in extremophile poeciliid fishes. Int J Evol Biol. doi: 10.1155/2012/148745
- Bonnie KE, Earley RL (2007) Expanding the scope for social information use. Anim Behav 74:171–181Google Scholar
- Constantz G (1989) Reproductive biology of poeciliid fishes. In: Meffe G, Snelson F (eds) Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 33–50Google Scholar
- Dugatkin LA (1996) Copying and mate choice. In: Heyes CM, Galef BGJ (eds) Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. Academic Press, New York, pp 85–105Google Scholar
- Goldstein JS (2001) War and gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Magurran AE (2011) Sexual coersion. In: Evans J, Pilastro A, Schlupp I (eds) Ecology and evolution of poeciliid fishes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 209–217Google Scholar
- Meisel RL, Sachs BD (1994) The physiology of male sexual behavior. In: Knobil E, Neill JD (eds) Physiology of reproduction, 2nd edn. Raven, New York, pp 3–106Google Scholar
- Miller R, Minckley W, Norris S (2006) Freshwater fishes of Mexico. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Monaghan EP, Glickman SE (1992) Hormones and aggressive behavior. In: Becker JB, Breedlove SM, Crews D (eds) Behavioral endocrinology. MIT, Cambridge, pp 261–286Google Scholar
- Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein W (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467–476Google Scholar
- Witte K (2006) Learning and mate choice. In: Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behavior. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp 70–95Google Scholar