4.5 Article

Male approach and female avoidance as mechanisms of population discrimination in sagebrush lizards

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 60, 期 5, 页码 655-662

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0209-x

关键词

mate choice; male choice; sexual selection; reproductive isolation; geographic differences; Sceloporus graciosus; population discrimination; choice tests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reproductive isolation and speciation can result from female choice for particular males. Isolation can also result, however, from male mating preferences or from aggressive encounters which then influence mating decisions. In this study, we use laboratory discrimination trials to study the behavioral mechanisms of population discrimination in sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus). We specifically ask three questions about population-level discrimination: (1) Does it vary in strength in relation to the geographic distance between the populations? (2) Is it more apparent in inter- or intra-sexual interactions? (3) Does it take the form of attraction or avoidance? We ran 890 trials that tested the ability of male and female sagebrush lizards from one population to discriminate their own population from four other populations. In addition, we utilized both sequential and simultaneous-choice designs, which enabled us to distinguish between attraction and avoidance. We found that most population-level discrimination was exhibited by male lizards preferring to associate with particular types of females, as well as female avoidance of particular types of males. The strength and direction of both discriminations depended on the populations compared and on whether the tests were conducted as sequential- or simultaneous-choice tests, producing a complex relationship between geographic distance and behavioral discrimination. Our results suggest that there are roles for male attraction and female avoidance in population discrimination, reproductive isolation, and speciation.

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