Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 247–254 | Cite as

A test of sensory exploitation in the swordtail characin (Corynopoma riisei) based on colour matching between female prey and a male ornament

  • Mirjam AmcoffEmail author
  • Niclas Kolm


The sensory exploitation hypothesis states that pre-existing biases in female sensory systems may generate strong selection on male signals to match such biases. As environmental conditions differ between populations, sexual preferences resulting from natural selection are expected to vary as well. The swordtail characin (Corynopoma riisei) is a species in which males carry a flag-like ornament growing from the operculum that has been proposed to function as a prey mimic to attract females. Here, we investigated if female plasticity in feeding preferences is associated with plasticity in preference for an artificial male ornament in this species. Females were trained for 10 days by offering them differently coloured food items and were then tested for changes in preferences for differently coloured artificial male ornaments according to foraging experience. We found a rapid and pronounced change in female preference for the colouration of the artificial ornament according to food training. Thus our results support the possibility that sensory exploitation may act as a driving force for female preferences for male ornaments in this species.


Sexual selection Female mate choice Corynopoma riisei Sensory drive Cognition Learning 



Thanks to Ted Morrow, Göran Arnqvist, Björn Rogell, Simone Immler, Amber Rice and Fernando Mateos-González for comments on the manuscript. Thanks also to Björn Rogell and Arild Husby for help with the statistical analyses and Anders Ödeen for help with producing the reflectance spectra. This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant to N. K.) and was approved by Uppsala Animal Research Ethical Board (application C263/6).

Supplementary material

10641_2013_147_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (114 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 113 kb)


  1. Amcoff M, Arnqvist G, Kolm N (2009) Courtship signalling with a labile bilateral signal: males show their best side. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1717–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G (2006) Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 361:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Kolm N (2010) Population differentiation in the swordtail characin (Corynopoma riisei): a role for sensory drive? J Evol Biol 23:1907–1918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Boughman JW (2002) How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 17:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaine AS, Lyon BE (2008) Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319:459–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Endler JA, Basolo AL (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuller RC (2009) A test of the critical assumption of the sensory bias model for the evolution of female mating preference using neural networks. Evolution 63:1697–1711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J (2005) Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am Nat 166:437–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garamszegi LZ, Calhim S, Dochtermann N, Hegyi G, Hurd PL, Jørgensen C, Kutsukake N, Lajeunesse MJ, Pollard KA, Schielzeth H, Symonds MRE, Nakagawa S (2009) Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioural ecology. Behav Ecol 20:1363–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grether GF, Kolluru GR, Rodd FH, de la Cerda J, Shimazaki K (2005) Carotenoid availability affects the development of a colour-based mate preference and the sensory bias to which it is genetically linked. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 272:2181–2188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalised linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Soft 33:1–22Google Scholar
  14. Heath DD, Blouw DM (1998) Are maternal effects in fish adaptive or merely physiological side effects? In: Mousseau TA, Fox CW (eds) Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 178–201Google Scholar
  15. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolm N, Arnqvist G (2011) Environmental correlates of diet in the swordtail characin (Corynopoma riisei, Gill). Env Biol Fish 92:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolm N, Amcoff M, Mann RP, Arnqvist G (2012) Diversification of a food- mimicking male ornament via sensory drive. Curr Biol 22:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kutaygil N (1959) Insemination, sexual differentiation and secondary sex characters in Stevardia albipinnis Gill. In: Istanbul University Fen Fakultesi Mecmuasi, Series B, pp 93–128Google Scholar
  21. Lehtonen TK, Wong BBM, Lindström K (2010) Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biol Lett 6:21–23PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macías-Garcia C, Lemus YS (2012) Foraging costs drive female resistance to a sensory trap. Proc Roy Soc B 1736:2262–2268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macías-Garcia C, Ramirez E (2005) Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature 434:501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarthy MA (2007) Bayesian methods for ecology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mead LS, Arnold SJ (2004) Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 19:264–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 21:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson K (1964) Behavior and morphology in the glandulocaudine fishes (Ostariophysi, Characidae). In: Davis J, Marler PR, Smith RI (eds) University of california publications in zoology, vol 75. University of California Press, Berkley, pp 59–152Google Scholar
  28. Proctor HC (1991) Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qvarnström A (2001) Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 16:5–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qvarnström A, Blomgren V, Wiley C, Svedin N (2004) Female collared flycatchers learn to prefer males with an artificial novel ornament. Behav Ecol 15:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT (2002) A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Transparency and silvering. In: Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (eds) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saetre G-P, Moum T, Bures S, Král M, Adamjan M, Moreno J (1997) A sexually selected character displacement in flycatchers reinforces premating isolation. Nature 387:589–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith C, Barber I, Wootton RJ, Chittka L (2004) A receiver bias in the origin of three- spined stickleback mate choice. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 271:949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walling CA, Royle NJ, Lindström J, Metcalfe NB (2008) Experience-induced preference for short-sworded males in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim Behav 76:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. West-Eberhard MJ (1983) The maintenance of sex as a developmental trap due to sexual selection. Q Rev Biol 58:155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wickler W (1968) Mimicry in plants and animals. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiens JJ (2001) Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends Ecol Evol 16:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaret TM (1972) Invisible prey, and the nature of polymorphism in the Cladocera (class Crustacea). Limn Oceanogr 17:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zaret TM, Kerfoot WC (1975) Fish predation on Bosima longirostris: body-size selection versus visibility selection. Ecology 56:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations