IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v17y2006i6p911-916.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Independent effects of familiarity and mating preferences for ornamental traits on mating decisions in guppies

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne R.K. Zajitschek
  • Jonathan P. Evans
  • Robert Brooks

Abstract

The avoidance of familiar individuals as mates can act to maximize the benefits of polyandry or might help to minimize inbreeding in small or highly philopatric populations. As previous mates are also familiar, the effects of familiarity and mating history can often be confounded. Here, we disentangle these effects on mating decisions in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, and examine their influence on sexual selection. In 3 experiments, males and females were 1) able to mate, 2) had visual and olfactory contact, or 3) had visual contact only. Familiarity was successfully acquired via visual cues, and females were in all cases more likely to mate with unfamiliar than with familiar males, indicating that familiarity is a more important determinant of mating outcome than mating history. Males did not court unfamiliar females any more than familiar females and did not differentially allocate sperm. Familiarity did not alter the strength of sexual selection on male coloration: we found overall positive selection for bright, large males. Female preferences for unfamiliar males and ornamental traits may therefore be largely independent. Copyright 2006.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne R.K. Zajitschek & Jonathan P. Evans & Robert Brooks, 2006. "Independent effects of familiarity and mating preferences for ornamental traits on mating decisions in guppies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(6), pages 911-916, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:17:y:2006:i:6:p:911-916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arl026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:17:y:2006:i:6:p:911-916. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.