4.5 Article

Female stickleback prefer shallow males: Sexual selection on nest microhabitat

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages 1643-1653

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12682

Keywords

Extended phenotype; Gasterosteus aculeatus; mate choice; microgeographic variation; opportunity for selection; threespine stickleback

Funding

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. David and Lucille Packard Foundation
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [IOS-1145468]
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1145468] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sexual selection is most often thought of as acting on organismal traits, such as size or color. However, individuals' habitat use may also affect mating success. Here, we show that, in threespine stickleback, nest depth can be a target of sexual selection. In postglacial lakes in British Columbia, male threespine stickleback nest in a narrow range of depths. Prior studies revealed heritable variation in males' preferred nest microhabitat. We surveyed four natural populations, finding that male stickleback with shallower nests were more successful at breeding. Indeed, nest depth was a much stronger predictor of male mating success than more commonly studied targets of sexual selection in stickleback (size, condition, shape, color, infection status). This selection on nest depth means that variance in fitness changed predictably across microhabitats, altering the opportunity for sexual selection to act on other traits. Accordingly, we show that sexual selection on other male traits is strongest where variance in nesting success is highest (at intermediate nest depths in some lakes). We conclude that males' choice of nesting microhabitat is an especially important target of sexual selection, resulting in fine-scale spatial variation in sexual selection on other traits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available