4.5 Article

Opposite effects of learning cause asymmetric mate preferences in hybridizing species

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 1133-1139

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars086

Keywords

hybrid zone; mate choice; olfactory communication; reproductive isolation; Xiphophorus

Funding

  1. NSF [IOS- 1045226]
  2. NWO
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [923825] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

How do females decide which males to accept or reject as potential mates when the individuals encountered are unfamiliar and may be either heterospecifics or conspecifics? Learning often influences the development of mate preferences. Experience with particular phenotypes often positively biases preference for that phenotype. However, experience can also induce aversion. We studied the effect of short-term experience with unfamiliar conspecific, heterospecific, or hybrid males on mate preferences of females of 2 swordtail fish species with native habitats,which differ in both ecology and effective population size. After exposure to males for a week, we tested the females' preferences for male olfactory cues. Both species shifted their mate preferences, but in opposite directions. Female Xiphophorus.birchmanni, living in larger populations, increased their preference for familiar phenotypes, whereas female X. malinche, from smaller, island-like populations, showed an inverse effect of familiarity, namely a decreased preference for newly familiarized males. The pattern of opposite effects of learning on mate choice mirrors with that seen in the evolution of reinforcement of genetic preferences in continental and island populations. Diametrically opposed shifts in preference can thus arise from the same social experience, causing asymmetry in the species' conspecific mate preferences.

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