Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 7, pp 1179–1186 | Cite as

Sex-specific conditional mating preferences in a cichlid fish: implications for sexual conflict

  • Sebastian A. Baldauf
  • Leif Engqvist
  • Tobias Ottenheym
  • Theo C. M. Bakker
  • Timo Thünken
Original Paper

Abstract

Conditional mating strategies enable individuals to modulate their mating behaviour depending on ‘individual status’ to maximise fitness. Theory predicts that variation in individual quality can lead to differences in mating preferences. However, empirical evidence is scarce particular in terms of variation in male and female strategies. Here, we experimentally investigated quality-dependent variation in mating preferences concerning reliable quality indicators in Pelvicachromis taeniatus, a colourful cichlid fish with mutual mate choice and ornamentation. Males as well as females were artificially manipulated in phenotypic quality by different feeding regimes. Ornamentation was connected to individual quality in both sexes. Males and females showed conditional mating strategies in different directions. Males showed prudent choice by preferring females of similar quality. In contrast to males, low-quality females preferred highly ornamented males, whereas high-quality females showed neither preferences for high- nor for low-quality males. The results suggest that individuals aim for specific benefits depending on individual quality. Furthermore, the conflicting conditional mating preferences of males and females might lead to sexual conflict, implicating a highly dynamical mating system that evolves even in absence of environmental changes.

Keywords

Pelvicachromis taeniatus Status-dependent mate choice Individual quality Body condition Sexual conflict Sexual selection Mutual mate choice 

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker TCM, Künzler R, Mazzi D (1999) Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldauf SA, Bakker TCM, Herder F, Kullmann H, Thünken T (2010) Male mate choice scales female ornament allometry in a cichlid fish. BMC Evol Biol 10:301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldauf SA, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H, Thünken T (2011) Female nuptial coloration and its adaptive significance in a mutual mate choice system. Behav Ecol 22:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Schroth SH, Thünken T, Bakker TCM (2009a) You can’t always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. BMC Evol Biol 9:129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Winter S, Thünken T, Bakker TCM (2009b) Computer animation as a tool to study preferences in the cichlid Pelvicachromis taeniatus. J Fish Biol 75:738–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bel-Venner MC, Dray S, Allaine D, Menu F, Venner S (2008) Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolger T, Connolly PL (1989) The selection of suitable indices for the measurements and analysis of fish condition. J Fish Biol 34:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman T (2006) Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Curr Biol 16:744–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cotton S, Rogers DW, Small J, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K (2006a) Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1287–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2006b) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 16:755–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA (2003) Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav Ecol 14:771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franceschi N, Lemaitre JF, Cezilly F, Bollache L (2010) Size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a test of the prudent choice hypothesis. Anim Behav 79:911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friberg U, Arnqvist G (2003) Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evol Biol 16:797–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griggio M, Hoi H (2010) Only females in poor condition display a clear preference and prefer males with an average badge. BMC Evol Biol 10:261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Härdling R, Kokko H (2005) The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res 7:697–715Google Scholar
  20. Holveck MJ, Geberzahn N, Riebel K (2011) An experimental test of condition-dependent male and female mate choice in zebra finches. PLoS One 6:e23974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holveck MJ, Riebel K (2010) Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 72:283–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jennions MD, Polakow DA (2001) The effect of partial brood loss on male desertion in a cichlid fish: an experimental test. Behav Ecol 12:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeswiet SB, Lee-Jenkins SSY, Godin JGJ (2012) Concurrent effects of sperm competition and female quality on male mate choice in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 23:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC (1996) Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keenleyside MHA (1983) Mate desertion in relation to adult sex-ratio in the biparental cichlid fish Herotilapia multispinosa. Anim Behav 31:683–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kokko H, Johnstone RA (2002) Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 357:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kokko H, Monaghan P (2001) Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol Lett 4:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Künzler R, Bakker TCM (1998) Computer animations as a tool in the study of mating preferences. Behaviour 135:1137–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehtonen TK (2012) Signal value of male courtship effort in a fish with paternal care. Anim Behav 83:1153–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Massironi M, Rasotto M, Mazzoldi C (2005) A reliable indicator of female fecundity: the case of the yellow belly in Knipowitschia panizzae (Teleostei: Gobiidae). Mar Biol 147:71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mautz BS, Jennions MD (2011) The effect of competitor presence and relative competitive ability on male mate choice. Behav Ecol 22:769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGregor PK (2000) Playback experiments: design and analysis. Acta Ethol 3:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 361:235–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R-Core-team (2009) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-92Google Scholar
  36. Plath M, Blum D, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R (2008) Audience effect alters mating preferences in a livebearing fish, the Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana. Anim Behav 75:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pomiankowski A (1987) The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol 128:195–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  39. Salzburger W (2009) The interaction of sexually and naturally selected traits in the adaptive radiations of cichlid fishes. Mol Ecol 18:169–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schütz D, Taborsky M (2005) The influence of sexual selection and ecological constraints on an extreme sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid. Anim Behav 70:539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taborsky B, Skubic E, Bruintjes R (2007) Mothers adjust egg size to helper number in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behav Ecol 18:652–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007a) Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol 17:225–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007b) Direct familiarity does not alter mating preferences for sisters in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Ethology 113:1107–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thünken T, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Schuld J, Hesse S, Bakker TCM (2011) Size-related inbreeding preference and competitiveness in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Behav Ecol 22:358–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thünken T, Meuthen D, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA (2012) A sex-specific trade-off between mating preferences for genetic compatibility and body size in a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2959–2964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thünken T, Meuthen D, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H (2010) Parental investment in relation to offspring quality in the biparental cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Anim Behav 80:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tomkins JL, Hazel WN, Penrose MA, Radwan JW, LeBas NR (2011) Habitat complexity drives experimental evolution of a conditionally expressed secondary sexual trait. Curr Biol 21:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Venner SI, Bernstein C, Dray S, Bel-Venner MC (2010) Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low quality but defendable females? Am Nat 175:650–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wada S, Arashiro Y, Takeshita F, Shibata Y (2011) Male mate choice in hermit crabs: prudence by inferior males and simple preference by superior males. Behav Ecol 22:114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1979) Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: "the sexy son hypothesis". Am Nat 113:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Widemo F, Saether SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian A. Baldauf
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leif Engqvist
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tobias Ottenheym
    • 1
  • Theo C. M. Bakker
    • 1
  • Timo Thünken
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Evolutionary Biology and EcologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Theoretical Biology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary StudiesRijksuniversiteit GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Evolutionary BiologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations