title: Covariation and repeatability of male mating effort and mating preferences in a promiscuous fish.
abstract: Although mate choice by males does occur in nature, our understanding of its importance in driving evolutionary change remains limited compared with that for female mate choice. Recent theoretical models have shown that the evolution of male mate choice is more likely when individual variation in male mating effort and mating preferences exist and positively covary within populations. However, relatively little is known about the nature of such variation and its maintenance within natural populations. Here, using the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata) as a model study system, we report that mating effort and mating preferences in males, based on female body length (a strong correlate of fecundity), positively covary and are significantly variable among subjects. Individual males are thus consistent, but not unanimous, in their mate choice. Both individual mating effort (including courtship effort) and mating preference were significantly repeatable. These novel findings support the assumptions and predictions of recent evolutionary models of male mate choice, and are consistent with the presence of additive genetic variation for male mate choice based on female size in our study population and thus with the opportunity for selection and further evolution of large female body size through male mate choice.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Carleton University Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
authors.forename: Jean-Guy J
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Godin
authors.forename: Heather L
authors.initials: HL
authors.lastname: Auld
keywords: Courtship; Poecilia reticulata; guppy; male mate choice; phenotypic variation; sexual selection
references.citation: Oecologia. 1995 Aug;103(2):224-229
references.pmid: 28306777
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001 Aug;76(3):305-39
references.pmid: 11569787
references.citation: Am Nat. 2009 Jan;173(1):12-25
references.pmid: 19063659
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Sep;26(9):467-73
references.pmid: 21680050
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jan 7;275(1630):77-82
references.pmid: 17956845
references.citation: Nature. 1991 May 2;351(6321):58-60
references.pmid: 2027382
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jan 1;16(1):5-7
references.pmid: 11146131
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Jan;14(1):26-31
references.pmid: 10234244
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Dec;26(12):647-54
references.pmid: 21890230
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2006 Sep;7(9):681-92
references.pmid: 16921346
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Dec 7;271 Suppl 6:S427-9
references.pmid: 15801594
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jul 7;269(1498):1325-30
references.pmid: 12079654
references.citation: Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1882-5
references.pmid: 18096798
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Jan 23;421(6921):360-3
references.pmid: 12540898
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1997 May;72(2):283-327
references.pmid: 9155244
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1999 Oct;58(4):907-916
references.pmid: 10512664
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Nov;85(4):935-56
references.pmid: 20569253
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Oct 14;401(6754):661-2
references.pmid: 10537103
references.citation: Evolution. 2006 Apr;60(4):674-85
references.pmid: 16739450
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Apr;15(4):149-155
references.pmid: 10717684
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Dec 09;5(12):e15279
references.pmid: 21151610
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2008 Jun;17(12):2975-84
references.pmid: 18494765
references.citation: Evolution. 2012 Dec;66(12):3722-35
references.pmid: 23206131
references.citation: Evolution. 1982 Jan;36(1):160-177
references.pmid: 28581096
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2009 Apr 1;77(4):771-783
references.pmid: 24707058
references.citation: Evolution. 2012 Aug;66(8):2646-53
references.pmid: 22834761