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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bakker TCM, Künzler R, Mazzi D (1999) Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234

    Article  CAS  Google 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 10:301

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 22:478–485

    Article  Google 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 9:129

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 75:738–746

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 275:77–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bolger T, Connolly PL (1989) The selection of suitable indices for the measurements and analysis of fish condition. J Fish Biol 34:171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapman T (2006) Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Curr Biol 16:744–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47

    Article  Google 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 273:1287–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2006b) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 16:755–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA (2003) Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav Ecol 14:771–779

    Article  Google 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 79:911–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friberg U, Arnqvist G (2003) Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evol Biol 16:797–811

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 10:261

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Härdling R, Kokko H (2005) The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res 7:697–715

    Google 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:e23974

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Holveck MJ, Riebel K (2010) Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:153–160

    Article  Google 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 72:283–327

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 12:84–92

    Article  Google 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 23:195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC (1996) Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382–1391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keenleyside MHA (1983) Mate desertion in relation to adult sex-ratio in the biparental cichlid fish Herotilapia multispinosa. Anim Behav 31:683–688

    Article  Google 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 357:319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kokko H, Monaghan P (2001) Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol Lett 4:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Künzler R, Bakker TCM (1998) Computer animations as a tool in the study of mating preferences. Behaviour 135:1137–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lehtonen TK (2012) Signal value of male courtship effort in a fish with paternal care. Anim Behav 83:1153–1161

    Article  Google 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 147:71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mautz BS, Jennions MD (2011) The effect of competitor presence and relative competitive ability on male mate choice. Behav Ecol 22:769–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McGregor PK (2000) Playback experiments: design and analysis. Acta Ethol 3:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 361:235–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R-Core-team (2009) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-92

  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 75:21–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pomiankowski A (1987) The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol 128:195–218

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  39. Salzburger W (2009) The interaction of sexually and naturally selected traits in the adaptive radiations of cichlid fishes. Mol Ecol 18:169–185

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 70:539–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Taborsky B, Skubic E, Bruintjes R (2007) Mothers adjust egg size to helper number in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behav Ecol 18:652–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007a) Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol 17:225–229

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 113:1107–1112

    Article  Google 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 22:358–362

    Article  Google 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 279:2959–2964

    Article  Google 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 80:69–74

    Article  Google 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 21:569–573

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 175:650–661

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 22:114–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1979) Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: "the sexy son hypothesis". Am Nat 113:201–208

    Article  Google 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 14:26–31

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank I.P. Rick for discussion and his help in the analysis of the photospectrometrical data. This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (BA 2885/2-3).

We thank A. Pilastro and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

Ethical standards

All experiments comply with the current laws of Germany.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian A. Baldauf.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Pilastro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baldauf, S.A., Engqvist, L., Ottenheym, T. et al. Sex-specific conditional mating preferences in a cichlid fish: implications for sexual conflict. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67, 1179–1186 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1543-4

Download citation

Keywords

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