4.5 Article

Variation in female choice of mates: condition influences selectivity

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 713-719

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The occurrence and significance of variation in apparent mate choice within populations are poorly understood. While one possible explanation for variation is that individuals differ in their mate preferences, an alternative possibility is that individuals vary in their mate selectivity or 'choosiness': that is, some individuals may be willing to accept less attractive mating partners than are others. This latter possibility is likely to result from bidirectional mate choice and differential mating access of high- versus low-quality mating partners. Here we altered the physical condition of female zebra finches, Taeniopygia gultata casta-notis, through modest trimming of their flight feathers to explore the possibility that individuals adjust selectivity in response to their own condition. We compared the selectivity of individuals with clipped versus intact wing feathers. Female finches spent less time associating with attractive males when their wings were clipped than when wings were intact. To ascertain whether their choices were influenced by the behaviour of stimulus males that perceived their altered status, we performed a companion experiment that measured male mate choice of females with clipped versus intact wings; no discrimination against clipped females was found. Collectively, these results indicate that a female's mate selectivity is dynamically adjusted based on her assessment of her own condition or mate-getting ability. Future studies that investigate the relationship between realized and ideal mate preferences are necessary to better understand preference functions and the genetic basis of mate preferences. (c) 2006 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