Literature DB >> 22513859

A sex-specific trade-off between mating preferences for genetic compatibility and body size in a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice.

Timo Thünken1, Denis Meuthen, Theo C M Bakker, Sebastian A Baldauf.   

Abstract

Mating preferences for genetic compatibility strictly depend on the interplay of the genotypes of potential partners and are therein fundamentally different from directional preferences for ornamental secondary sexual traits. Thus, the most compatible partner is on average not the one with most pronounced ornaments and vice versa. Hence, mating preferences may often conflict. Here, we present a solution to this problem while investigating the interplay of mating preferences for relatedness (a compatibility criterion) and large body size (an ornamental or quality trait). In previous experiments, both sexes of Pelvicachromis taeniatus, a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice, showed preferences for kin and large partners when these criteria were tested separately. In the present study, test fish were given a conflicting choice between two potential mating partners differing in relatedness as well as in body size in such a way that preferences for both criteria could not simultaneously be satisfied. We show that a sex-specific trade-off occurs between mating preferences for body size and relatedness. For females, relatedness gained greater importance than body size, whereas the opposite was true for males. We discuss the potential role of the interplay between mating preferences for relatedness and body size for the evolution of inbreeding preference.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22513859      PMCID: PMC3385479          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  31 in total

Review 1.  Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review.

Authors:  T Tregenza; N Wedell
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 6.185

2.  When not to avoid inbreeding.

Authors:  Hanna Kokko; Indrek Ots
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation.

Authors:  Laurent Lehmann; Lukas F Keller; Hanna Kokko
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2006-08-12       Impact factor: 2.691

4.  Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance.

Authors:  Timo Thünken; Theo C M Bakker; Sebastian A Baldauf; Harald Kullmann
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Both male and female sexual ornaments reflect offspring performance in a fish.

Authors:  Jukka Kekäläinen; Hannu Huuskonen; Maria Tuomaala; Raine Kortet
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Optimal level of inbreeding in the common lizard.

Authors:  M Richard; S Losdat; J Lecomte; M de Fraipont; J Clobert
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 7.  Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences.

Authors:  S Craig Roberts; Anthony C Little
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-03-08       Impact factor: 1.082

8.  MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans.

Authors:  C Wedekind; T Seebeck; F Bettens; A J Paepke
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1995-06-22       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Male mate choice scales female ornament allometry in a cichlid fish.

Authors:  Sebastian A Baldauf; Theo C M Bakker; Fabian Herder; Harald Kullmann; Timo Thünken
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice.

Authors:  Amy L Sherborne; Michael D Thom; Steve Paterson; Francine Jury; William E R Ollier; Paula Stockley; Robert J Beynon; Jane L Hurst
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  8 in total

1.  Predator-induced neophobia in juvenile cichlids.

Authors:  Denis Meuthen; Sebastian A Baldauf; Theo C M Bakker; Timo Thünken
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Familiarity adds to attractiveness in matters of siskin mate choice.

Authors:  J C Senar; F Mateos-Gonzalez; F Uribe; L Arroyo
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding.

Authors:  Raïssa A de Boer; Regina Vega-Trejo; Alexander Kotrschal; John L Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 15.460

4.  No evidence for size-assortative mating in the wild despite mutual mate choice in sex-role-reversed pipefishes.

Authors:  Kenyon B Mobley; Maria Abou Chakra; Adam G Jones
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Social deprivation affects cooperative predator inspection in a cichlid fish.

Authors:  Saskia Hesse; Jaime M Anaya-Rojas; Joachim G Frommen; Timo Thünken
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.963

6.  Differentiation at the MHCIIα and Cath2 loci in sympatric Salvelinus alpinus resource morphs in Lake Thingvallavatn.

Authors:  Kalina H Kapralova; Johannes Gudbrandsson; Sigrun Reynisdottir; Cristina B Santos; Vanessa C Baltanás; Valerie H Maier; Sigurdur S Snorrason; Arnar Palsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Female mate choice in convict cichlids is transitive and consistent with a self-referent directional preference.

Authors:  François-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont; Marine Freychet; Sébastien Motreuil; Frank Cézilly
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 3.172

8.  The more pieces, the better the puzzle: sperm concentration increases gametic compatibility.

Authors:  Craig D H Sherman; Emi S Ab Rahim; Mats Olsson; Vincent Careau
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.912

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.