Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 98, Issue 7, pp 1731–1740 | Cite as

Multiple male sexual signals and female responsiveness in the swordtail characin, Corynopoma riisei

Article

Abstract

In the courtship process, multiple signals are often used between the signaller and the receiver. Here we describe female response to multiple male visual morphological and behavioural signals in the swordtail characin, Corynopoma riisei. The swordtail characin is a species in which males display several morphological ornaments as well as a rich courtship repertoire. Our results show that high courtship intensity was associated with an increased female response towards the male ornament, increased number of mating attempts and a reduction in female aggression. The morphological aspects investigated here did not seem to correlate with female response. This may indicate that, when both behaviour and morphology are considered simultaneously, courtship behaviour may have priority over morphological cues in this species.

Keywords

Courtship Mate choice Morphology Multiple signalling Visual cues 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and was approved of by the Uppsala Animal Research Board (application C263/6). Thanks to Fernando Mateos-González and Isobel Booksmythe for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10641_2015_388_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 109 kb)

References

  1. Amcoff M, Kolm N (2013) Does female feeding motivation affect the response to a food-mimicking male ornament in the swordtail characin Corynopoma riisei? J Fish Biol 83:343–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amcoff M, Kolm N (2014) A test of sensory exploitation in the swordtail characin (Corynopoma riisei) based on colour matching between female prey and male ornament. Environ Biol Fishes 97:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Amcoff M, Lindqvist C, Kolm N (2013) Sensory exploitation and plasticity in female mate choice in the swordtail characin. Anim Behav 85:891–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc 57:289–300Google Scholar
  7. Bro-Jørgensen J (2010) Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world of flux. Trends Ecol Evol 25:292–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  10. Crapon de Caprona MD, Ryan MJ (1990) Conspecific mate recognition in swordtails, Xiphophorus nigrensis and pygmaeus (Poeciliidae): olfactory and visual cues. Anim Behav 39:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawkins MS, Guilford T (1991) The corruption of honest signalling. Anim Behav 41:865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hair Jr JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Canonical correlation, a supplement to multivariate data analysis. In: Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. 7th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall Publishing, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebets EA, Papaj DR (2005) Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoefler CD, Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2008) Evolutionarily costly courtship displays in a wolf spider: a test of viability indicator theory. Behav Ecol 19:974–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnstone RA (1994) Female preferences for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372:172–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolm N, Amcoff M, Mann R, Arnqvist G (2012) Diversification of a food-mimicking male ornament via sensory drive. Curr Biol 22:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Nielsen MG, Parri S, Rivero A (1998) Energetic costs of size and sexual signalling in a wolf spider. Proc R Soc B 265:2203–2209CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Kutaygil N (1959) Insemination, sexual differentiation and secondary sex characters in Stevardia albipinnis Gill. In: Istanbul University Fen Fakultesi Mecmuasi, Series B. 93–128Google Scholar
  19. Lehtonen TK (2012) Signal value of male courtship effort in a fish with parental care. Anim Behav 83:1153–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magnusson JJ (1962) An analysis of aggressive behaviour, growth and competition for food and space in medaka (Oryzias latipes (Pisces, Cyprinodontidae)). Can J Zool 40:313–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:167–176Google Scholar
  23. Møller AP, Saino N, Taramino G, Galeotti P, Ferrario S (1998) Paternity and multiple signaling: effects of a secondary sexual character and song on paternity in the barn swallow. Am Nat 151:236–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. O’Loghlen AL, Rothstein SI (2010) Multimodal signalling in a songbird: male audiovisual displays vary significantly by social context in brown-headed cowbirds. Anim Behav 79:1285–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Partan SR, Marler P (2005) Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am Nat 166:231–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Polak M, Taylor PW (2007) A primary role of developmental instability in sexual selection. Proc R Soc B 274:3133–3140CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  29. Reynolds JD (1993) Should attractive individuals court more? Theory and a test. Am Nat 141:914–927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes G, Simmons LW (2007) Symmetry, attractiveness and sexual selection. In: Barett L, Dunbar R (eds) Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 333–364Google Scholar
  31. Scheffer SJ, Uetz GW, Stratton GE (1996) Sexual selection, male morphology, and the efficacy of courtship signalling in two wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tomkins JL, Simmons LW (2003) Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection: paradigm shifts, publication bias and observer expectation. In: Polak M (ed) Developmental instability: causes and consequences. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 231–261Google Scholar
  33. Uetz GW, Stratton GE (1982) Acoustic communication and reproductive isolation in spiders. In: Witt PN, Rovner JS (eds) Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 123–159Google Scholar
  34. Weitzman SH, Menezes NA (1998) Relationships of the tribes and genera of the Glandulocaudine (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Characidae) with a description of a new genus, Chrysobrycon. In: Malabarba LR, Reis RE, Vari RP, Lucena ZMS, Lucena CAS (eds) Phylogeny and classification of neotropical fishes part 2: Characiformes. EdiPUCRS, Porto Alegre, pp 171–192Google Scholar
  35. Wickler W (1968) Mimicry in plants and animals. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Zoology/EthologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations