Advertisement

Intersexuelle Selektion: was Weibchen wollen

Part of the Springer-Lehrbuch book series (SLB)

Zusammenfassung

Im Unterschied zu Männchen können Weibchen in der Regel ihren Fortpflanzungserfolg nicht durch zusätzliche Verpaarungen erhöhen. Stattdessen können sie zur Maximierung ihres Fortpflanzungserfolgs die Qualität und Überlebenschancen ihrer Nachkommen verbessern. Dies ist grundsätzlich auf zwei Arten möglich. Erstens können sie ihre mütterliche Investition, die durch Zeit und Energie limitiert wird, erhöhen (→ Kap. 11). Zweitens können sie durch die Wahl eines entsprechenden Partners Vorteile für sich oder ihre Jungen beziehen. Diese Vorteile können direkter Natur sein, indem sie Männchen wählen, die ihnen materielle Vorteile verschaffen oder väterliches Investment in den Nachwuchs leisten (→ Kap. 9.4). Weibchen können auch indirekte Vorteile aus der Partnerwahl beziehen, indem sie Männchen hoher genetischer Qualität wählen, die diese Qualitätsmerkmale an die Jungen weitergeben (→ Kap. 9.5). Manche Befunde sprechen allerdings auch dafür, dass die Partnerwahl der Weibchen nicht adaptiv ist, sondern dass Männchen in einem evolutionären Wettrennen zwischen den Geschlechtern sinnesphysiologische Präferenzen der Weibchen ausnutzen (→ Kap. 9.8). Unter Umständen konkurrieren Weibchen auch um Männchen hoher Qualität oder sie versuchen, den Fortpflanzungserfolg von Rivalinnen zu beeinträchtigen (→ Kap. 9.7).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2229–2233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aeschlimann PB, Häberli MA, Reusch TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M (2003) Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:119–126Google Scholar
  3. Alberts SA (1999) Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1501–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altmann J (1990) Primate males go where the females are. Anim Behav 39: 193–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15: 149–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2001) Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13155–13160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Hansen LTT (1997) On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc R Soc Lond B 264: 1579–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Andersson J, Borg-Karlson A-K, Wiklund C (2000) Sexual cooperation and conflict in butterflies: a male-transferred anti-aphrodisiac reduces harassment of recently mated females. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1271–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnqvist G (1998) Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arnqvist G (2004) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evolution 58:1383–1388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460–10464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2003) Insect behaviour: reversal of sex roles in nuptial feeding. Nature 424:387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bakker TCM (1993) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8:129–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Barber I, Arnott SA, Braithwaite VA, Andrew J, Huntingford FA (2001) Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc R Soc Lond B 268: 71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Barraclough TG, Harvey PH, Nee S (1995) Sexual selection and taxonomic diversity in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Basolo AL (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Beecher MD (1991) Successes and failures of parent-offspring recognition in animals. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin recognition. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 94–127Google Scholar
  22. Bellemain E, Zedrosser A, Manel S, Waits LP, Taberlet P, Swenson JE (2006) The dilemma of female mate selection in the brown bear, a species with sexually selected infanticide. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3: 262–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Blanckenhorn WU, Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Reim C, Teuschl Y, Ward PI (2002) The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol 13: 353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Küpper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Szekely T, Wallander J, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Blows MW (2002) Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1113–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Boughman JW (2001) Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Boul KE, Funk WC, Darst CR, Cannatella DC, Ryan MJ (2007) Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Briggs SE, Godin JGJ, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Brooks R (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (2000) Song as an indicator of male parental effort in the sedge warbler. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Buchanan KL, Spencer KA, Goldsmith AR, Catchpole CK (2003) Song as an honest signal of past developmental stress in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1149–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bussière LF, Basit HA, Gwynne DT (2005) Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav Ecol 16: 223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Cant M, English S, Reeve H, Field J (2006) Escalated conflict in a social hierarchy. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2977–2984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Catchpole CK (1987) Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 2:94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1671–1675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Clarke FM, Miethe GH, Bennett NC (2001) Reproductive suppression in female Damaraland mole-rats Cryptomys damarensis: dominant control or self-restraint? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Female transfer and inbreeding avoidance in social mammals. Nature 337:70–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Clutton-Brock TH (1998) Reproductive skew, concessions and limited control. Trends Ecol Evol 13:288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Clutton-Brock TH (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Spong G, Russell AF, Jordan NR, Bennett NC, Sharpe LL, Manser MB (2006) Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature 444:1065–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Double MC (2003) Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 72:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Cooley JR, Marshall DC (2004) Threshold or comparisons: mate choice criteria and sexual selection in a periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Behaviour 141:647–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Cooney R, Bennett NC (2000) Inbreeding avoidance and reproductive skew in a cooperative mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:801–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Cummings ME, Larkins-Ford J, Reilly CRL, Wong RY, Ramsey M, Hofmann HA (2008) Sexual and social stimuli elicit rapid and contrasting genomic responses. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Cunningham EJA, Birkhead TR (1998) Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim Behav 56:1311–1322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Dale J (2000) Ornamental plumage does not signal male quality in red-billed queleas. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2143–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000) Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Davies NB (2000) Multi-male breeding groups in birds: ecological causes and social conflict. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Primate males. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  60. Davies NB, Hartley IR, Hatchwell BJ, Langmore NE (1996) Female control of copulations to maximize male help: a comparison of polygynandrous alpine accentors, Prunella collaris, and dunnocks, P. modularis. Anim Behav 51: 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. den Hartog PM, de Kort SR, ten Cate C (2007) Hybrid vocalizations are effective within, but not outside, an avian hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 18:608–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Dijkstra PD, Seehausen O, Groothuis TGG (2008) Intrasexual competition among females and the stabilization of a conspicuous colour polymorphism in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Domb LG, Pagel M (2001) Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410:204–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Double M, Cockburn A (2000) Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy-wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Duarte LC, Bouteiller C, Fontanillas IP, Petit E, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding in the greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula. Evolution 57:638–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Dugatkin LA (1992) Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 139:1384–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Dugatkin LA, Godin JG (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. East ML, Burke T, Wilhelm K, Greig C, Hofer H (2003) Sexual conflicts in spotted hyenas: male and female mating tactics and their reproductive outcome with respect to age, social status and tenure. Proc R Soc Lond B 270: 1247–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Eberhard WG (1990) Animal genitalia and female choice. Am Sci 78:134–141Google Scholar
  70. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton/NJGoogle Scholar
  71. Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2004) Selected polyandry: female choice and inter-sexual conflict in a small nocturnal solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Edvardsson M, Tregenza T (2005) Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates? Behav Ecol 16:788–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Edwards SV, Kingan SB, Calkins JD, Balakrishnan CN, Jennings WB, Swanson WJ, Sorenson MD (2005) Speciation in birds: genes, geography, and sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6550–6557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Engeler B, Reyer H-U (2001) Choosy females and indiscriminate males: mate choice in mixed populations of sexual and hybridogenetic water frogs (Rana lessonae, Rana esculenta). Behav Ecol 12:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2001) Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  79. Fisher DO, Double MC, Blomberg SP, Jennions MD, Cockburn A (2006) Postmating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 444:89–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447:1107–1110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B (2002) A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Fox EA (2002) Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Fox CW, Rauter CM (2003) Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res 5:273–286Google Scholar
  86. Friberg M, Vongvanich N, Borg-Karlson A-K, Kemp DJ, Merilaita S, Wiklund C (2008) Female mate choice determines reproductive isolation between sympatric butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:873–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Fromhage L, Schneider JM (2005) Safer sex with feeding females: sexual conflict in a cannibalistic spider. Behav Ecol 16:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Gibson RM, Langen TA (1996) How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol 11:468–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Gil D, Gahr M (2002) The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Gilchrist JS (2006) Female eviction, abortion, and infanticide in banded mongooses (Mungos mungo): implications for social control of reproduction and synchronized parturition. Behav Ecol 17:664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. González A, Rossini C, Eisner M, Eisner T (1999) Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 5570–5574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Grafe TU (1997) Costs and benefits of male choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J theoret Biol 144:517–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Greeff JM, Parker GA (2000) Spermicide by females: what should males do? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1759–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Gross MR, Suk HY, Robertson CT (2007) Courtship and genetic quality: asymmetric males show their best side. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2115–2122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Halliday T, Arnold SJ (1987) Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav 35:939–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566–3573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14:282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Slagsvold T (2007) No cultural transmission of species recognition between parents and offspring in free-living great tits and blue tits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24:609–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Heinze J, Keller L (2000) Alternative reproductive strategies: a queen perspective in ants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Higgie M, Chenoweth S, Blows MW (2000) Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science 290:519–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Hoffman JI, Forcada J, Trathan PN, Amos W (2007) Female fur seals show active choice for males that are heterozygous and unrelated. Nature 445:912–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083–5088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Immelmann K (1972) Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Adv Stud Behav 4:147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences: the handicap principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2000) Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 15:250–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406: 296–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Johnstone RA (2000) Models of reproductive skew: a review and synthesis. Ethology 106:5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (1999) Reproductive skew and the threat of eviction: a new perspective. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (2000) Power struggles, dominance testing, and reproductive skew. Am Nat 155:406–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Johnstone RA, Keller L (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Jones IL, Hunter FM (1999) Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim Behav 57: 521–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Jones AG, Walker D, Avise JC (2001) Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268: 2531–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Kavaliers M, Fudge MA, Colwell DD, Choleris E (2003) Aversive avoidance responses of female mice to the odors of males infected with an ectoparasite and the effects of prior familiarity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Keller L, Fournier D (2002) Lack of inbreeding avoidance in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. Behav Ecol 13:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Keller L, Reeve HK (1994) Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends Ecol Evol 9:98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Keller L, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Dhondt AA (1997) Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav Ecol 8:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Keyser AJ, Hill GE (2000) Structurally based plumage coloration is an honest signal of male quality in male blue grosbeaks. Behav Ecol 11:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB (1999) Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature 397: 667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Koene JM, Schulenburg H (2005) Shooting darts: co-evolution and counter-adaptation in hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evol Biol 5:25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Kokko H (2001) Fisherian and ‘good genes’ benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol Lett 4:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Kokko H, Johnstone RA (1999) Social queuing in animal societies: a dynamic model of reproductive skew. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002) The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1331–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Kothiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Künzler R, Bakker TCM (2000) Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:999–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Leinders-Zufall T, Brennan P, Widmayer P, Chandramani SP, Maul-Pavicic A, Jäger M, Li X-H, Breer H, Zufall F, Boehm T (2004) MHC class I peptides as chemosensory signals in the vomeronasal organ. Science 306:1033–1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Lihoreau M, Zimmer C, Rivault C (2007) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav Ecol 18:880–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Linsenmair KE (1987) Kin recognition in subsocial arthropods, in particular in the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri. In: Fletcher DJC, Michener CD (eds) Kin recognition in animals. John Wiley, New York, pp 121–208Google Scholar
  141. Lorenz K (1941) Vergleichende Bewegungsstudien an Anatiden. J Ornithol 89: 194–293Google Scholar
  142. Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Mauget R, Sorci G (2007) Male sexual attractiveness affects the investment of maternal resources into the eggs in peafowl (Pavo cristatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1043–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Maan ME, Seehausen O, Söderberg L, Johnson L, Ripmeester EA, Mrosso HD, Taylor MI, van Dooren TJ, van Alphen JJ (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
  144. Machnik P, Kramer B (2008) Female choice by electric pulse duration: attractiveness of the males’ communication signal assessed by female bulldog fish, Marcusenius pongolensis (Mormyridae, Teleostei). J Exp Biol 211: 1969–1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Markow TA (1997) Assortative fertilizations in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7756–7760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2003) The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature 423:979–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Martín J, Civantos E, Amo L, López P (2007) Chemical ornaments of male lizards Psammodromus algirus may reveal their parasite load and health state to females Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Mateo JM (2003) Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Mateo JM, Johnston RE (2000) Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:695–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Mays HL Jr, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. McComb KE (1991) Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav 41:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. McKinney F, Derrickson SR, Mineau P (1983) Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour 86:250–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433: 375–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1992) Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Milinski M, Griffiths S, Wegner KM, Reusch TBH, Haas-Assenbaum A, Boehm T (2005) Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4414–4416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Miller GT, Pitnick S (2002) Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230–1233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Møller AP (1992) Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Møller AP, Cuervo JJ (1998) Speciation and feather ornamentation in birds. Evolution 52:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Morrow EH, Arnqvist G, Pitnick S (2003) Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav Ecol 14:802–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Muller MN, Kahlenberg SM, Emery Thompson M, Wrangham RW (2007) Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for female chimpanzees. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1009–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Oetting S, Pröve E, Bischof H-J (1995) Sexual imprinting as a two-stage process: mechanisms of information storage and stabilization. Anim Behav 50: 393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Owens IP (2002) Male-only care and classical polyandry in birds: phylogeny, ecology and sex differences in remating opportunities. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 357:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Pai A, Yan G (2002) Polyandry produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M, Blum N (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–166Google Scholar
  168. Parker GA, Partridge L (1998) Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 353:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998a) Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998b) MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1299–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility genes. Am Nat 153:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Pérez-Rodríguez L (2008) Carotenoid-based ornamentation as a dynamic but consistent individual trait. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Pfennig KS (2007) Facultative mate choice drives adaptive hybridization. Science 318:965–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Pilastro A, Benetton S, Bisazza A (2003) Female aggregation and male competition reduce costs of sexual harassment in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Anim Behav 65:1161–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Pillay N (2002) Father-daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mammal Biol 67:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Pitnick S (1991) Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 41:735–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Pitnick S, Miller GT, Reagan J, Holland B (2001) Males’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 268: 1071–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Pizzari T (2003) Food, vigilance, and sperm: the role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous bird. Behav Ecol 14:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Price T, Birch GL (1996) Repeated evolution of sexual color dimorphism in passerine birds. Auk 113:842–848Google Scholar
  183. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2002) A generalized female bias for long tails in a short-tailed widowbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2141–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC (2000) Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Randler C (2002) Avian hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim Behav 63:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Real L (1990) Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136:376–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Reeve HK, Keller L (1996) Relatedness asymmetry and reproductive sharing in animal societies. Am Nat 148:764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Reeve HK, Keller L (2001) Test of reproductive-skew models in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:347–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Reeve HK, Shen S-F (2006) A missing model in reproductive skew theory: the bordered tug-of-war. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:8430–8434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Reeve HK, Emlen ST, Keller L (1998) Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete control by dominant breeders? Behav Ecol 9:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Rendall D (2004) ‘Recognizing’ kin: mechanisms, media, minds, modules, and muddles. In: Chapais B, Berman C (eds) Kinship and behavior in primates. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 295–316Google Scholar
  192. Reusch TB, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Rice WR (2000) Dangerous liaisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12953–12955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Roberts ML, Buchanan KL, Evans MR (2004) Testing the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis: a review of the evidence. Anim Behav 68:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Robertson JGM (1990) Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog, Uperolia laevigata. Anim Behav 39:639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Rubenstein DR (2007) Stress hormones and sociality: integrating social and environmental stressors. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Sæther SA, Sætre G-P, Borge T, Wiley C, Svedin N, Andersson G, Veen T, Haavie J, Servedio MR, Bureš S, Král M, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L, Träff J, Qvarnström A (2007) Sex chromosome-linked species recognition and evolution of reproductive isolation in flycatchers. Science 318:95–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Sakaluk SK (2000) Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Saltzman W, Schultz-Darken NJ, Abbott DH (1996) Behavioural and endocrine predictors of dominance and tolerance in female common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. Anim Behav 51:657–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Sauer KP, Lubjuhn T, Sindern J, Kullmann H, Kurtz J, Epplen C, Epplen JT (1998) Mating system and sexual selection in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Naturwissenschaften 85:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Sauter A, Brown MJ, Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) Males of social insects can prevent queens from multiple mating. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1449–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2004) Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2453–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Schlupp I, Mc Knab R, Ryan MJ (2001) Sexual harassment as a cost for molly females: bigger males cost less. Behaviour 138:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Schmoll T, Dietrich V, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (2003) Long-term fitness consequences of female extra-pair matings in a socially monogamous passerine. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 69–96Google Scholar
  211. Simmons LW (1990) Nuptial feeding in tettigonids: male costs and the rates of fecundity increase. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Slagsvold T, Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Lifjeld JT (2002) Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1449–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Smadja C, Ganem G (2002) Subspecies recognition in the house mouse: a study of two populations from the border of a hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 13:312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Stockley P (1997) Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 12:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. Stockley P (2003) Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Stumpner A, von Helversen O (1994) Song production and song recognition in a group of sibling grasshopper species (Chorthippus dorsatus, Ch. dichrous and Ch. loratus: Orthoptera, Acrididae). Bioacoustics 6:1–23Google Scholar
  218. Sullivan BK (1989) Passive and active female choice: a comment. Anim Behav 37:692–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC (1994) Preference for symmetric males by female zebra finches. Nature 367:165–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. ten Cate C, Vos DR (1999) Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv Stud Behav 28:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. Thornhill R (1980) Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim Behav 28:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Thornhill R, Møller AP (1998) The relative importance of size and symmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol 9:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2004) A socially enforced signal of quality in a paper wasp. Nature 432:218–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. Trillmich F (1983) The mating system of the marine iguana Amblyrhynchus cristatus. Z Tierpsychol 63:141–172Google Scholar
  228. Uy JA, Patricelli GL, Borgia G (2000) Dynamic mate-searching tactic allows female satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus to reduce searching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. Vedenina VY, von Helversen O (2003) Complex courtship in a bimodal grasshopper hybrid zone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Vehrencamp SL (1983) A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Anim Behav 31:667–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Veiga JP (2004) Replacement female house sparrows regularly commit infanticide: gaining time or signaling status? Behav Ecol 15:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Waser PM, De Woody JA (2006) Multiple paternity in a philopatric rodent: the interaction of competition and choice. Behav Ecol 17:971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Wegner KM, Kalbe M, Kurtz J, Reusch TB, Milinski M (2003) Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301:1343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. 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
  235. West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58:155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. Widemo F, Sæther 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
  238. Wikelski M, Carbone C, Bednekoff PA, Choudhury S, Tebbich S (2001) Why is female choice not unanimous? Insights from costly mate sampling in marine iguanas. Ethology 107:623–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Wiklund C, Karlsson B, Leimar O (2001) Sexual conflict and cooperation in butterfly reproduction: a comparative study of polyandry and female fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1661–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Wilkinson G, Reillo P (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PA, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1491–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Wilson AB, Ahnesjö I, Vincent ACJ, Meyer A (2003) The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (Family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57:1374–1386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  243. Wirtz P (1999) Mother species – father species: unidirectional hybridisation in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Witte K, Curio E (1999) Sexes of a monomorphic species differ in preference for mates with a novel trait. Behav Ecol 10:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. Witte C, Ueding K (2003) Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol 14:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  246. Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. Won Y-J, Sivasundar A, Wang Y, Hey J (2005) On the origin of Lake Malawi cichlid species: a population genetic analysis of divergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6581–6586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, Boyse J, Zayas ZA, Thomas L (1976) Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med 144:1324–1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. Young AJ, Carlson AA, Monfort SL, Russell AF, Bennett NC, Clutton-Brock TH (2006) Stress and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12005–12010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection – a selection for handicap. J theoret Biol 53: 205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Zala SM, Potts WK, Penn DJ (2004) Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behav Ecol 15:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2003) Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109:929–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Personalised recommendations