Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 7, pp 1033–1043 | Cite as

Female lizards discriminate between potential reproductive partners using multiple male traits when territory cues are absent

  • Lindsey Swierk
  • Matthew Ridgway
  • Tracy Langkilde
Original Paper

Abstract

Female choice can powerfully influence the evolution of male phenotypes. In territorial species, it is challenging to determine the targets of female choice because male traits (e.g., behavior and morphology) are often correlated with territory. We sought to elucidate if and how females specifically evaluate male traits in a territorial species. In this study, we presented female fence lizards, Sceloporus undulatus, with two potential mates to examine mate choice in the absence of territory cues. Females associated more with males possessing better body condition, longer heads, and wider throat badges, and that performed more shudder behavior, which females responded to by approaching shuddering males and performing push-ups. A post hoc decision tree analysis suggests that the strongest predictor of female association was an overall quality index that incorporates all of these traits, rather than individual traits. Male snout–vent length, head width, abdominal badge width, and push-up behavior did not affect female association. Further research on why these traits, which are known to correlate with fitness, do not appear to be used by females when selecting mates would improve our understanding of the evolution of male traits. Our study reveals that females of this territorial species possess the ability to use multiple male traits interactively to make fitness-relevant mate choice decisions in the absence of direct territory cues.

Keywords

Female choice Male trait Multiple cues Sceloporus undulatus Sexual selection Territory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank M. Morgan for assisting with data collection, T. Robbins for his statistical advice for the decision tree analysis, L. Nell and J. Abraham for helping to build the experimental arena and caring for study animals, and B. Chitterling, an anonymous reviewer, and the Associate Editor for valuable comments on this manuscript. L.S. is supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

Ethical standards

The research presented here adhered to the legal requirements of the USA and the Institutional Guidelines of Penn State University (IACUC permit numbers 27696 and 31400). Lizards were captured under permits from the State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (permit number 4454) and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (permit number 022520081).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Glynn C (1986) Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature 323:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson S, Pryke SR, Ornborg J, Lawes MJ, Andersson M (2002) Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a trade-off between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. Am Nat 160:683–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson BL, Neergaard R (1991) Mate choice in the willow warbler—a field experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bajer K, Molnar O, Torok J, Herczeg G (2010) Female European green lizards (Lacerta viridis) prefer males with high ultraviolet throat reflectance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:2007–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balmford A, Rosser AM, Albon SD (1992) Correlates of female choice in resource-defending antelope. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bart J, Earnst SL (1999) Relative importance of male and territory quality in pairing success of male rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, Norris KJ (1994) Sexual selection and the mismeasure of color. Am Nat 144:848–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandt Y (2003) Lizard threat display handicaps endurance. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1061–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bro-Jørgensen J (2009) Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends Ecol Evol 25:292–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (1997) Female choice in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: multiple cues from song and territory quality. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calf KM, Downs CT, Cherry MI (2003) Territoriality and breeding success in the Cape Sugarbird (Promerops cafer). Emu 103:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B (2002) Uncoupling direct and indirect components of female choice in the wild. P Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14897–14902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Candolin U (2005) Why do multiple traits determine mating success? Differential use in female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Candolin U, Reynolds JD (2001) Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav Ecol 12:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carey PW (1991) Resource-defense polygyny and male territory quality in the New Zealand fur seal. Ethology 88:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carpenter CC (1962) Patterns of behavior in two Oklahoma lizards. Am Midl Nat 67:132–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpenter CC, Ferguson GW (1977) Variation and evolution of stereotyped behaviour in reptiles. In: Gans C, Tinkle DW (eds) Biology of the reptilia, vol 7. Academic Press Inc., London, pp 335–554Google Scholar
  21. Castellano S, Rosso A (2007) Female preference for multiple attributes in the acoustic signals of the Italian treefrog, Hyla intermedia. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1293–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ceballos S, Kiorboe T (2010) First evidences of sexual selection by mate choice in marine zooplankton. Oecologia 164:627–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Clarkson CE (2007) Food supplementation, territory establishment, and song in the Prothonotary Warbler. Wilson J Ornithol 119:342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Crawford JR, Welling LLM, Little AC (2010) The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2405–2410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dijkstra PD, van der Zee EM, Groothuis TGG (2008) Territory quality affects female preference in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:747–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunlap K, Mathies T (1993) Effects of nymphal ticks and their interaction with malaria on the physiology of male fence lizards. Copeia 1993:1045–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eckerle KP, Thompson CF (2006) Mate choice in house wrens: nest cavities trump male characteristics. Behaviour 143:253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferguson GW (1971) Behavior and interactions of 2 sympatric Sceloporus in Utah. Am Midl Nat 86:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferguson GW, Talent LG (1993) Life-history traits of the lizard Sceloporus undulatus from two populations raised in a common laboratory environment. Oecologia 93:88–94Google Scholar
  31. Ferguson GW, Brinker AM, Gehrmann WH, Bucklin SE, Baines FM, Macklin SJ (2010) Voluntary exposure of some western-hemisphere snake and lizard species to ultraviolet-B radiation in the field: how much ultraviolet-B should a lizard or snake receive in captivity. Zoo Biol 29:317–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ferner JW (1976) Notes on natural history and behavior of Sceloporus undulatus erythrocheilus in Colorado. Am Midl Nat 96:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haenel GJ, Smith LC, John-Alder H (2003a) Home-range analysis in Sceloporus undulatus. II. A test of spatial relationships and reproductive success. Copeia 2002:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haenel GJ, Smith LC, John-Alder HB (2003b) Home-range analysis in Sceloporus undulatus (eastern fence lizard). I. Spacing patterns and the context of territorial behavior. Copeia 2001:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halliday T (1983) The study of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–32Google Scholar
  36. Hamilton PS, Sullivan BK (2005) Female mate attraction in ornate tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus: a multivariate analysis. Anim Behav 69:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds—a role for parasites. Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Healey M, Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Variety is the spice of life: female lizards choose to associate with colour-polymorphic male dyads. Ethology 114:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hebets EA, Papaj DR (2005) Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herrel A, Spithoven L, Van Damme R, De Vree F (1999) Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti; testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Funct Ecol 13:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrel A, Van Damme R, Vanhooydonck B, De Vree F (2001) The implications of bite force performance for diet in two species of lacertid lizards. Can J Zool 79:662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hews DK (1990) Examining hypotheses generated by field measures of sexual selection on male lizards, Uta palmeri. Evolution 44:1956–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huey RB, Dunham AE, Overall KL, Newman RA (1990) Variation in locomotor performance in demographically known populations of the lizard Sceloporus merriami. Physiol Zool 63:845–872Google Scholar
  45. Hunsaker D (1962) Ethological isolating mechanisms in Sceloporus torquatus group of lizards. Evolution 16:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Scheers H, Molina-Borja M, Van Damme R (2005) Morphology, performance and fighting capacity in male lizards, Gallotia galloti. Funct Ecol 19:800–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Iossa G, Soulsbury CD, Baker PJ, Harris S (2008) Body mass, territory size, and life-history tactics in a socially monogamous canid, the red fox Vulpes vulpes. J Mammal 89:1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. James SE, M'Closkey RT (2004) Patterns of body size and habitat use in a lizard assemblage. Ecoscience 11:160–167Google Scholar
  49. Johnstone RA (1996) Multiple displays in animal communication: 'backup signals' and 'multiple messages'. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 351:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Karsten KB, Andriamandimbiarisoa LN, Fox SF, Raxworthy CJ (2009) Social behavior of two species of chameleons in Madagascar: insights into sexual selection. Herpetologica 65:54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kelso EC, Martins EP (2008) Effects of two courtship display components on female reproductive behaviour and physiology in the sagebrush lizard. Anim Behav 75:639–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirkpatrick M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) Mate choice rules in animals. Anim Behav 71:1215–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. LaDage LD, Ferkin MH (2007) Do female leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius) discriminate between previous mates and novel males? Behaviour 144:515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lailvaux SP, Irschick DJ (2006) No evidence for female association with high-performance males in the green anole lizard, Anolis carolinensis. Ethology 112:707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lampe HM, Espmark YO (2003) Mate choice in Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca: can females use song to find high-quality males and territories? IBIS 145:E24–E33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lancaster LT, Hipsley CA, Sinervo B (2009) Female choice for optimal combinations of multiple male display traits increases offspring survival. Behav Ecol 20:993–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Langkilde T (2009) Invasive fire ants alter behavior and morphology of native lizards. Ecology 90:208–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Leal M (1999) Honest signalling during prey-predator interactions in the lizard Anolis cristatellus. Anim Behav 58:521–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lebas NR, Marshall NJ (2001) No evidence of female choice for a condition-dependent trait in the agamid lizard, Ctenophorus ornatus. Behaviour 138:965–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Liu M, Siefferman L, Mays H Jr, Steffen JE, Hill GE (2009) A field test of female mate preference for male plumage coloration in eastern bluebirds. Anim Behav 78:879–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lundelius E (1957) Skeletal adaptations in 2 species of Sceloporus. Evolution 11:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maan ME, Seehausen O, Söderberg L, Johnson L, Ripmeester EAP, Mrosso HDJ, Taylor MI, van Dooren TJ, van Alphen JJM (2004) Intraspecific sexual selection on a speciation trait, male coloration, in the Lake Victoria cichlid Pundamilia nyererei. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2445–2452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Martín J, López P, Gabirot M, Pilz KM (2007) Effects of testosterone supplementation on chemical signals of male Iberian wall lizards: consequences for female mate choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1275–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Møller AP (1993) Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual ornaments predict female choice. J Evol Biol 6:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mountjoy DJ, Lemon RE (1996) Female choice for complex song in the European starling: a field experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Olsen BJ, Greenberg R, Fleischer RC, Walters JR (2008) Extrapair paternity in the swamp sparrow, Melospiza georgiana: male access or female preference? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Olsson M, Madsen T (1995) Female choice on male quantitative traits in lizards—why is it so rare? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H (2003) Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:S254–S256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parker WS (1994) Demography of the fence lizard, Sceloporus undulatus, in northern Mississippi. Copeia 1994:136–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Perry G, LeVering K, Girard I, Garland T Jr (2004) Locomotor performance and social dominance in male Anolis cristatellus. Anim Behav 67:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pryke SR, Lawes MJ, Andersson S (2001) Agonistic carotenoid signalling in male red-collared widowbirds: aggression related to the colour signal of both the territory owner and model intruder. Anim Behav 62:695–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Quinn VS, Hews DK (2000) Signals and behavioural responses are not coupled in males: aggression affected by replacement of an evolutionarily lost colour signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:755–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reaney LT, Whiting MJ (2003) Are female tree agamas (Acanthocercus atricollis atricollis) turned on my males or resources? Ethol Ecol Evol 15:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ressel S, Schall JJ (1989) Parasites and showy males: malarial infection and color variation in fence lizards. Oecologia 78:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rich CN, Talent LG (2008) The effects of prey species on food conversion efficiency and growth of an insectivorous lizard. Zoo Biol 27:181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Robbins TR, Pruitt JN, Straub LE, McCoy ED, Mushinisky HR (2010) Transgressive aggression in Sceloporus hybrids confers fitness through advantages in male agonistic encounters. J Anim Ecol 79:137–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Roe JH, Hopkins WA, Talent LG (2005) Effects of body mass, feeding, and circadian cycles on metabolism in the lizard Sceloporus occidentalis. J Herpetol 39:595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Romo-Beltran A, Macias-Ordonez R, Cordoba-Aguilar A (2009) Male dimorphism, territoriality and mating success in the tropical damselfly, Paraphlebia zoe Selys (Odonata: Megapodagrionidae). Evol Ecol 23:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ruby DE (1977) The function of shudder displays in the lizard, Sceloporus jarrovi. Copeia 1977:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sheldahl LA (2000) The territorial behavior of the western fence lizard, Sceloporus occidentalis. Herpetologica 56:469–479Google Scholar
  83. Sigmund WR (1983) Female preference for Anolis carolinensis males as a function of dewlap color and background coloration. J Herpetol 17:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simon VB (2007) Not all signals are equal: male brown anole lizards (Anolis sagrei) selectively decrease pushup frequency following a simulated predatory attack. Ethology 113:793–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simon CA, Middendorf GA (1980) Spacing in juvenile lizards (Sceloporus jarrovi). Copeia 1980:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sirkiä PM, Laaksonen T (2009) Distinguishing between male and territory quality: females choose multiple traits in the pied flycatcher. Anim Behav 78:1051–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smith LC, John-Alder HB (1999) Seasonal specificity of hormonal, behavioral, and coloration responses to within- and between-sex encounters in male lizards (Sceloporus undulatus). Horm Behav 36:39–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Smith JM, Zucker N (1997) Do female tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus, exhibit mate choice? J Herpetol 31:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. SPSS Inc. (2001) SPSS Answer Tree User’s Guide, Version 3.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  90. SPSS Inc. (2008) SPSS for Windows, Version 17.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  91. Temeles EJ, Kress WJ (2010) Mate choice and mate competition by a tropical hummingbird at a floral resource. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1607–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tinkle DW, Ballinger RE (1972) Sceloporus undulatus: a study of the intraspecific comparative demography of a lizard. Ecology 53:570–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tokarz RR (1995) Mate choice in lizards: a review. Herpetol Monogr 9:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ (2004) The evolution of female preferences for multiple indicators of quality. Am Nat 164:173–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Verdolin JL, Slobodchikoff CN (2010) Male territoriality leads to increased access to resources rather than securing paternity in a social sciurid, Cynomys gunnisoni. Behaviour 147:1145–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Walling CA, Royle NJ, Lindstrom J, Metcalf NB (2010) Do female association preferences predict the likelihood of reproduction? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weins JJ (2001) Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends Ecol Evol 16:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  100. Yosef R, Pinshow B (1989) Cache size in shrikes influences female mate choice and reproductive success. Auk 106:418–421Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Swierk
    • 1
  • Matthew Ridgway
    • 1
  • Tracy Langkilde
    • 1
  1. 1.208 Mueller Laboratory, Department of BiologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations