4.2 Article

Female preferences for conspecific males indicate reproductive isolation between sympatric Labeotropheus Ahl from Lake Malawi

期刊

ETHOLOGY
卷 128, 期 6, 页码 482-488

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eth.13282

关键词

assortative mating; cichlid; mate choice; mbuna; sexual selection; speciation

资金

  1. UW-Milwaukee Supporting Undergraduate Research Fellowship
  2. Orth Family Ichthyology Research Fund (MPM)
  3. American Cichlid Association Guy D. Jordan Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines behavioral reproductive isolation in a pair of rock-dwelling cichlids from Lake Malawi and confirms that females prefer conspecific males, providing further evidence for the role of sexual selection in speciation of cichlid fishes from Lake Malawi.
In sexually reproducing taxa, reproductive isolation is key to speciation. Given the speed with which behavioral reproductive isolation evolves, this form of isolation is of particular importance to rapidly evolving species. Here we examine behavioral reproductive isolation in a sympatric, congeneric pair of rock-dwelling cichlids from Lake Malawi, testing the hypothesis that females should prefer conspecific males. We used a pair of Labeotropheus, L. fuelleborni Ahl and L. trewavasae Fryer, from the Chidunga Rocks in southwestern Lake Malawi, to test this hypothesis, with the prediction that females would approach conspecific males more frequently than they would heterospecific males. When given a choice between a male L. fuelleborni and L. trewavasae, we found that females did approach males of their own species more frequently than males of the opposite species, and that differences in length and the number of eggspots on the anal fin between the stimulus males had no effect on a female's choice. These results are consistent with behavioral reproductive isolation between these sympatric species, and add further support to the hypothesis that sexual selection played a key role in the speciation of cichlid fishes from Lake Malawi.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据