Journal of Ethology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 249–254 | Cite as

Mate choice in female convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata) and the relationship between male size and dominance

  • Jennifer Gagliardi-Seeley
  • Joseph Leese
  • Nick Santangelo
  • M. Itzkowitz
Article

Abstract

We examined how male size and fighting ability influence a female’s mate assessment process and her eventual mate choice in the monogamous convict cichlid, Amatitlania nigrofasciata. Females always chose the larger of two males when they were allowed to see a larger male next to a smaller one and when a larger male defeated a smaller one in a fight. They did not differentiate between large and small males when they did not see the two males together nor did they choose a dominant over a subordinate male when both were the same size. We suggest that females select on the basis of male size because it is a better predictor of both direct and indirect benefits (i.e., future competitive interactions and foraging ability) than dominance behavior only. Despite selecting one male over the other early in the courtship period, females continued to visit both males until spawning. Our evidence suggests that this assessment behavior more closely resembles a bet-hedging tactic rather than the female’s indecision as to which male will be her mate.

Keywords

Mate choice Mate competition Intrasexual competition Monogamy Cichlidae 

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bockelman AK (2004) Courtship and parental care in the biparental convict cichlid fish (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus): a test of their relationship. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Chase ID, Bartolomeo C, Dugatkins LA (1994) Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Anim Behav 48:393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Draud MJ, Itzkowitz M (2004) Mate numbers or mate quality: female mate choice in the promiscuous variegated pupfish (Cyprinodon variegates). Ecol Ethol Evol 16:1–13Google Scholar
  5. Forsgren E (1997) Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 26:1283–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gagliardi-Seeley J, Itzkowitz M (2006) Pairs with large male are better at parental defense than pairs with small males in the convict cichlid (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus). J Fish Biol 69:1239–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoi H (1997) Assessment of the quality of copulation partners in the monogamous bearded tit. Anim Behav 53:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Itzkowitz M, Vollmer G, Rios-Carenas O (1998) Competition for nesting sites between monogamous pairs of convict cichlids (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum): Asymmetries in size and prior residence. Behaviour 135:261–267Google Scholar
  9. Jackson WM (1991) Why do winners keep winning? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW (1999) Variance in female quality, operational sex ratio and mate choice in a bushcricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koops MA, Grant JWA (1993) Weight asymmetry and sequential assessment in convict cichlid contests. Can J Zool 71:475–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leiser J, Itzkowitz M (1999) The benefits of dear enemy recognition in three-contender convict cichlid (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum) contests. Behaviour 136:983–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luttbeg B (1996) A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behav Ecol 7:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Noonan KC (1983) Female mate choice in the cichlid fish Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. Anim Behav 31:1005–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peterson E, Järvi T, Olsén H, Mayer I, Hedenskog M (1999) Male–male competition and female choice in brown trout. Anim Behav 57:777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E (1998) Should females prefer dominant males? Tree 13:498–501Google Scholar
  18. Santangelo N (2005) Courtship in the monogamous convict cichlid; what are individuals saying to rejected and selected mates? Anim Behav 69:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Santangelo N, Itzkowitz M (2004) Sex differences in the mate selection process of the monogamous, biparental convict cichlid, Archocentrus nigrofasciatum. Behaviour 141:1041–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shapiro LE, Dewsbury DA (1986) Male dominance, female choice and male copulatory behavior in two species of voles (Microtus orchogaster and Microtus montanus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sih A, Lauer M, Krupa JJ (2002) Path analysis and the relative importance of male–female conflict, female choice and male–male competition in water striders. Anim Behav 63:1079–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stapley J (2008) Female mountain log skinks are more likely to mate with males that court more, not males that are dominant. Anim Behav 75:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Triefenbach F, Itzkowitz M (1998) Male switching as a function of mate quality in convict cichlids, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. Anim Behav 55:1263–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Breukelen NA, Draud M (2005) The roles of male size and female eavesdropping in divorce in the monogamous convict cichlid (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, Cichlidae). Behaviour 142:1029–1041Google Scholar
  25. Wisenden BD (1994) Factors affecting reproductive success in free-ranging convict cichlids (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum). Can J Zool 72:2177–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wong BB, Candolin U (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev 80:559–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Gagliardi-Seeley
    • 1
  • Joseph Leese
    • 2
  • Nick Santangelo
    • 3
  • M. Itzkowitz
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMetropolitan State College of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesEastern Kentucky UniversityRichmondUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations