Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Dec 7;271(Suppl 6):S427–S429. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0207

Uncoupling the links between male mating tactics and female attractiveness.

Alfredo F Ojanguren 1, Anne E Magurran 1
PMCID: PMC1810086  PMID: 15801594

Abstract

Because not all females are equally attractive, and because mating reduces the chances of getting further copulations, males should prefer better-quality mates. In this paper, we use the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata) to explore the effects of two non-correlated measures of female quality--size and reproductive status--on male mating decisions. All male guppies employ two alternative mating tactics. We found that large females, particularly those from a high predation site, were the target of most sneaky mating attempts. The response persisted in fish raised under standard conditions over several generations in the laboratory. In addition, non-pregnant females received more courtship displays. We conclude that males can discriminate among females and that they uncouple their mating tactics to track different axes of quality.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (90.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Jennions M. D., Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2000 Feb;75(1):21–64. doi: 10.1017/s0006323199005423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kelley J. L., Graves J. A., Magurran A. E. Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. Nature. 1999 Oct 14;401(6754):661–662. doi: 10.1038/44314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Knight Jonathan. Sexual stereotypes. Nature. 2002 Jan 17;415(6869):254–256. doi: 10.1038/415254a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kraak SBM, Bakker TCM. Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav. 1998 Oct;56(4):859–866. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lu S., Santoro J. C., Fuller D. H., Haynes J. R., Robinson H. L. Use of DNAs expressing HIV-1 Env and noninfectious HIV-1 particles to raise antibody responses in mice. Virology. 1995 May 10;209(1):147–154. doi: 10.1006/viro.1995.1238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Magurran A. E., Nowak M. A. Another battle of the sexes: the consequences of sexual asymmetry in mating costs and predation risk in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc Biol Sci. 1991 Oct 22;246(1315):31–38. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1991.0121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  8. Reeve J. P., Fairbairn D. J. Change in sexual size dimorphism as a correlated response to selection on fecundity. Heredity (Edinb) 1999 Dec;83(Pt 6):697–706. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00616.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wong Bob B. M., Jennions Michael D. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 7;270 (Suppl 1):S36–S38. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES