Literature DB >> 32022418

Designing mate choice experiments.

Liam R Dougherty1.   

Abstract

The important role that mate choice plays in the lives of animals is matched by the large and active research field dedicated to studying it. Researchers work on a wide range of species and behaviours, and so the experimental approaches used to measure animal mate choice are highly variable. Importantly, these differences are often not purely cosmetic; they can strongly influence the measurement of choice, for example by varying the behaviour of animals during tests, the aspects of choice actually measured, and statistical power. Consideration of these effects are important when comparing results among studies using different types of test, or when using laboratory results to predict animal behaviour in  natural populations. However, these effects have been underappreciated by the mate choice literature to date. I focus on five key experimental considerations that may influence choice: (i) should mating be allowed to occur, or should a proxy behavioural measure of preference be used instead? (ii) Should subjects be given a choice of options? (iii) Should each subject be tested more than once, either with the same or different stimuli? (iv) When given a choice, how many options should the subject choose between? (v) What form should the experimental stimuli take? I discuss the practical advantages and disadvantages of common experimental approaches, and how they may influence the measurement of mate choice in systematic ways. Different approaches often influence the ability of animals to perceive and compare stimuli presented during tests, or the perceived costs and benefits of being choosy. Given that variation in the design of mate choice experiments is likely unavoidable, I emphasise that there is no single 'correct' approach to measuring choice across species, although ecological relevance is crucial if the aim is to understand how choice acts in natural populations. I also highlight the need for quantitative estimates of the sizes of potentially important effects, without which we cannot make informed design decisions.
© 2020 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Keywords:  choice test; cognition; comparative evaluation; context-dependent; experimental design; mate choice; mate sampling; mating preference; preference function; repeatability

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32022418     DOI: 10.1111/brv.12586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  6 in total

1.  Defense against predators incurs high reproductive costs for the aposematic moth Arctia plantaginis.

Authors:  Carita Lindstedt; Kaisa Suisto; Emily Burdfield-Steel; Anne E Winters; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.671

2.  Tolerant pattern recognition: evidence from phonotactic responses in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer).

Authors:  Adam M Bent; Berthold Hedwig
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Cognition and Its Shaping Effect on Sexual Conflict: Integrating Biology and Psychology.

Authors:  Beatriz Álvarez; Joris M Koene
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-18

4.  Estimation of the strength of mate preference from mated pairs observed in the wild.

Authors:  Erin Clancey; Timothy R Johnson; Luke J Harmon; Paul A Hohenlohe
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 4.171

Review 5.  The better, the choosier: A meta-analysis on interindividual variation of male mate choice.

Authors:  Pietro Pollo; Shinichi Nakagawa; Michael M Kasumovic
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 11.274

6.  Does brain size affect mate choice? An experimental examination in pygmy halfbeaks.

Authors:  Rebecca M McNeil; Alessandro Devigili; Niclas Kolm; John L Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 2.671

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.