39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      You can't always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Assortative mating patterns for mate quality traits like body size are often observed in nature. However, the underlying mechanisms that cause assortative mating patterns are less well known. Sexual selection is one important explanation for assortment, suggesting that i) one (usually the female) or both sexes could show preferences for mates of similar size or ii) mutual mate choice could resolve sexual conflict over quality traits into assortment. We tested these hypotheses experimentally in the socially monogamous cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus, in which mate choice is mutual.

          Results

          In mate choice experiments, both sexes preferred large mates irrespective of own body size suggesting mating preferences are not size-assortative. Especially males were highly selective for large females, probably because female body size signals direct fitness benefits. However, when potential mates were able to interact and assess each other mutually they showed size-assortative mating patterns, i.e. the likelihood to mate was higher in pairs with low size differences between mates.

          Conclusion

          Due to variation in body size, general preferences for large mating partners result in a sexual conflict: small, lower quality individuals who prefer themselves large partners are unacceptable for larger individuals. Relative size mismatches between mates translate into a lower likelihood to mate, suggesting that the threshold to accept mates depends on own body size. These results suggest that the underlying mechanism of assortment in P. taeniatus is mutual mate choice resolving the sexual conflict over mates, rather than preference for mates of similar size.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview.

          Sexual conflict is a conflict between the evolutionary interests of individuals of the two sexes. The sexes can have different trait optima but this need not imply conflict if their optima can be attained simultaneously. Conflict requires an interaction between males and females (e.g. mating or parental care), such that the optimal outcomes for each sex cannot be achieved simultaneously. It is important to distinguish between battleground models, which define the parameter space for conflict and resolution models, which seek solutions for how conflicts are resolved. Overt behavioural conflict may or may not be manifest at resolution. Following Fisherian principles, an immediate (i.e. direct) benefit to a male that has a direct cost to his female partner can have an indirect benefit to the female via her male progeny. Female resistance to mating has been claimed to represent concurrence rather than conflict, due to female benefits via sons (males with low mating advantage are screened out by resistance). However, the weight of current evidence (both theoretical and empirical) supports sexual conflict for many cases. I review (i) conflicts over mate quality, encounters between males and females of genetically diverged subpopulations, mating rate and inbreeding, (ii) the special features of postcopulatory sexual conflict and (iii) some general features of importance for conflict resolution.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Parental investment and sexual selection

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling.

              Biases in the operational sex ratio (OSR) are seen as the fundamental reason behind differential competition for mates in the two sexes, and as a strong determinant behind differences in choosiness. This view has been challenged by Kokko and Monaghan, who argue that sex-specific parental investment, mortalities, mate-encounter rates and quality variation determine the mating system in a way that is not reducible to the OSR. We develop a game-theoretic model of choosiness, signalling and parental care, to examine (i) whether the results of Kokko and Monaghan remain robust when its simplifying assumptions are relaxed, (ii) how parental care coevolves with mating strategies and the OSR and (iii) why mutual mate choice is observed relatively rarely even when both sexes vary in quality. We find qualitative agreement with the simpler approach: parental investment is the primary determinant of sex roles instead of the OSR, and factors promoting choosiness are high species-specific mate-encounter rate, high sex-specific mate-encounter rate, high cost of breeding (parental investment), low cost of mate searching and highly variable quality of the opposite sex. The coevolution of parental care and mating strategies hinders mutual mate choice if one parent can compensate for reduced care by the other, but promotes it if offspring survival depends greatly on biparental care. We argue that the relative rarity of mutual mate choice is not due to biases in the OSR. Instead, we describe processes by which sexual strategies tend to diverge. This divergence is prevented, and mutual mate choice maintained, if synergistic benefits of biparental care render parental investment both high and not too different in the two sexes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Evol Biol
                BMC Evolutionary Biology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2148
                2009
                10 June 2009
                : 9
                : 129
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, University of Bonn, An der Immenburg 1, D-53121 Bonn, Germany
                Article
                1471-2148-9-129
                10.1186/1471-2148-9-129
                2719620
                19515244
                852f91ac-8b87-4e12-983a-6ec136193168
                Copyright © 2009 Baldauf et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 December 2008
                : 10 June 2009
                Categories
                Research Article

                Evolutionary Biology
                Evolutionary Biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article