4.5 Review

Mate choice for cognitive traits: a review of the evidence in nonhuman vertebrates

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 447-459

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq173

关键词

cognition; courtship; developmental stress; foraging; mate choice; sexual selection

资金

  1. Dr. Milton Leong Fellowship
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To what extent do individuals assess the cognitive abilities of the opposite sex when choosing a mate? With the exception of song learning in birds, the hypothesis that cognitive traits are under sexual selection has received attention only recently. Here, we evaluate the evidence for this hypothesis in nonhuman vertebrates. We first briefly review the literature on brain development, which shows that cognition may be a sensitive indicator of early developmental conditions. We then consider the empirical evidence that females choose mates with better cognitive skills, which may be reflected in males' courtship displays, foraging performance, courtship feeding, or diet-dependent morphological traits. There is very little research that assesses whether females discriminate between males through direct observation of cognitively demanding behavior. Instead, several studies support female choice on the basis of morphological traits correlated with cognitive abilities. We conclude by highlighting key questions for future research: 1) To what extent do cognitive skills determine foraging success, courtship feeding, and the expression of diet-dependent morphological traits? 2) Do behavioral courtship displays depend on motor development and physiological maturation or learning through practice and experience? 3) How do cognitive abilities affect survival and mating success? Studies on a range of vertebrate taxa, with their diverse mating systems and cognitive ecologies, offer great potential to tackle these questions and deepen our understanding of sexual selection on cognition. [Behav Ecol 22: 447-459 (2011)]

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