4.5 Article

Are leaders good mates? A study of call timing and male quality in a chorus situation

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 1487-1495

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.06.019

关键词

acoustic communication; anuran; call timing; chorus; European treefrog; Hyla arborea; mate choice; sexual selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Within insect and anuran choruses, females are exposed to many male sexual signals overlapping in time. In many species, male call timing influences mate choice, with females preferentially orienting towards males that succeed in calling just before their opponents. The mechanisms through which males actively regulate their call timing to achieve this have been the focus of much interest. However, no study has addressed the problem of the reliability of call leadership as an indicator of male quality, which is crucial to females, since basing their choice of mate on an unreliable criterion could lead them to engage in suboptimal matings, with detrimental effects to their fitness. Addressing this question in the European treefrog, Hyla arborea, we first ascertained that females preferentially orient towards the first of two identical overlapping conspecific calls. We then found that within experimental choruses the males with the highest proportion of leading calls had significantly higher total calling times, a call characteristic encompassing two indicators of signal costliness: call duration and call rate. Although we failed to find a link between call leadership and male body condition, this study provides novel evidence that female preference for leading calls leads to the selection of the males with the highest energetic investment in their sexual display. The handicap principle predicts that this form of female preference should increase the fitness of females by guaranteeing that they select high-quality mates. (C) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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