IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v32y2021i1p30-40..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of boundary length and adjacent patch contrast in guppy mate choice

Author

Listed:
  • Adélaïde Sibeaux
  • Thomas Camduras
  • John A Endler
  • Ulrika Candolin

Abstract

The presence of various combinations of adjacent colors within polymorphic species’ color pattern could have a major impact on mate choice. We studied the role of pattern geometry in predicting mate choice in guppies using boundary strength analysis (BSA). BSA estimates the visual contrast intensity between two adjacent color patches (ΔS) weighted by the lengths of the boundaries between these adjacent color patches. We measured both the chromatic (hue and saturation) and achromatic (luminance) ΔS for each pair of adjacent patches. For each male’s color pattern, we measured BSA as both mean (mΔS) and coefficient of variation (cvΔS) of all ΔS weighted by their corresponding boundary lengths. We also determined if specific color patch boundaries had an impact on female preferences and whether these predicted overall male contrast (mΔS). We found that males with a higher mΔS were more attractive to females and that six boundaries containing either fuzzy black or black as one of the pair colors significantly affected female preferences, indicating that 1) females favored highly conspicuous males and 2) melanin-based patches could be used as a signal amplifier, not only for orange but for other colors.

Suggested Citation

  • Adélaïde Sibeaux & Thomas Camduras & John A Endler & Ulrika Candolin, 2021. "The role of boundary length and adjacent patch contrast in guppy mate choice," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(1), pages 30-40.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:30-40.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/araa097
    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:32:y:2021:i:1:p:30-40.. 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.