| Literature DB >> 15117410 |
Alexandra Syriatowicz1, Robert Brooks.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variation in mate choice behaviour among females within a population may influence the strength and form of sexual selection, yet the basis for any such variation is still poorly understood. Condition-dependence may be an important source of variation in female sexual responsiveness and in the preference functions for male display traits that she expresses when choosing. We manipulated food intake of female guppies (Poecilia reticulata), and examined the effect on several measures of condition and various components of mate choice behaviour.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15117410 PMCID: PMC411045 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-4-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Two-way ANOVA to test for a difference in measures of female condition after four weeks in 'high' or 'low' food treatments.
| Mean (SD) | treatment | Block | treatment × block | ||||||||
| Condition measure | High | Low | df | df | df | ||||||
| Standard length | 24.18 mm (1.72) | 20.30 mm (1.72) | 1,98 | 294.16 | 0.001 | 9,9 | 19.48 | 0.000 | 9,98 | 1.22 | 0.294 |
| Total length | 31.73 mm (2.34) | 26.95 mm (2.34) | 1,98 | 534.89 | 0.001 | 9,9 | 20.97 | 0.000 | 9,98 | 0.57 | 0.816 |
| Weight | 0.314 g (0.060) | 0.186 g (0.047) | 1,98 | 258.80 | 0.001 | 9,9 | 16.14 | 0.000 | 9,98 | 1.40 | 0.199 |
| Somatic fat reserves | 0.182% (0.043) | 0.152% (0.042) | 1,97 | 17.82 | 0.002 | 9,9 | 17.58 | 0.000 | 9,97 | 2.04 | 0.043 |
| Number of ova | 15.18 (5.50) | 4.28 (0.298) | 1,97 | 157.81 | 0.001 | 9,9 | 1.19 | 0.054 | 9,97 | 1.22 | 0.292 |
| Critical swimming speed | 17.4 cm.s-1 2.5 | 16.1 cm.s-1 (2.7) | 1,50 | 4.07 | 0.144 | 4,4 | 3.04 | 0.025 | 4,50 | 0.70 | 0.597 |
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the flow-chamber apparatus used to measure critical swimming speed. Water, pump and outflow end were in a 300 litre plastic tub.
Mean preference function slopes expressed by high and low food females, and overall preference function slopes expressed by all females. Differences among treatments are assessed using a paired-sample t-test. Deviations of common preference functions from zero are assessed using a one-sample t-test.
| Comparison of treatment preference functions | Common preference function | ||||||
| Mean slopes* | Paired | Mean slope* (SE) | One-sample | ||||
| High | Low | P | P | ||||
| Body area | 0.6 (0.4) | 0.3 (0.4) | 0.506 | 0.625 | 0.4 (0.3) | 1.443 | 0.083 |
| Tail area | 0.8 (0.9) | 0.7 (0.8) | 0.092 | 0.928 | 0.6 (0.6) | 1.252 | 0.113 |
| Black area | 52.3 (60.1) | 60.8 (52.1) | -0.152 | 0.882 | 56.5 (38.7) | 1.460 | 0.081 |
| Fuzzy black area | 13.2 (53.3) | 63.5 (48.2) | -0.848 | 0.418 | 38.3 (35.5) | 1.082 | 0.147 |
| Orange area | 41.3 (32.4) | 64.6 (28.8) | -1.269 | 0.236 | 52.9 (21.3) | 2.488 | 0.011 |
| Iridescent area | 60.8 (46.5) | 75.5 (55.7) | -0.273 | 0.791 | 68.1 (35.4) | 1.928 | 0.035 |
* all mean slopes are × 100
Figure 1Attractiveness of males (standardized within trials) to females from the high and low-condition treatment.