Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches

Reinhold K, Schielzeth H (2015)
Journal of Comparative Physiology A 201: 171-182.

Download
Es wurde kein Volltext hochgeladen. Nur Publikationsnachweis!
Zeitschriftenaufsatz | Veröffentlicht | Englisch
Abstract / Bemerkung
Animals are faced with many choices and a very important one is the choice of a mating partner. Inter-individual differences in mating preferences have been studied for some time, but most studies focus on the location of the peak preference rather than on other aspects of preference functions. In this review, we discuss the role of variation in choosiness in inter-sexual selection. We define individual-level choosiness as the change in mating propensity in response to different stimulus signals. We illustrate general issues in estimating aspects of preference functions and discuss experimental setups for quantifying variation in choosiness with a focus on choices based on acoustic signals in insects. One important consideration is whether preferences are measured sequentially one stimulus at a time or in competitive multiple-choice setups; the suitability of these alternatives depends on the ecology of the study species. Furthermore, we discuss the usefulness of behavioural proxies for determining preference functions, which can be misleading if the proxies are not linearly related to mating propensity. Finally, we address statistical approaches, including the use of function-valued trait analysis, for studying choosiness. Most of the conclusions can be generalized beyond acoustic signals in insects and to choices in non-sexual contexts.
Erscheinungsjahr
Zeitschriftentitel
Journal of Comparative Physiology A
Band
201
Seite(n)
171-182
ISSN
PUB-ID

Zitieren

Reinhold K, Schielzeth H. Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 2015;201:171-182.
Reinhold, K., & Schielzeth, H. (2015). Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 201, 171-182. doi:10.1007/s00359-014-0963-6
Reinhold, K., and Schielzeth, H. (2015). Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 201, 171-182.
Reinhold, K., & Schielzeth, H., 2015. Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 201, p 171-182.
K. Reinhold and H. Schielzeth, “Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches”, Journal of Comparative Physiology A, vol. 201, 2015, pp. 171-182.
Reinhold, K., Schielzeth, H.: Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 201, 171-182 (2015).
Reinhold, Klaus, and Schielzeth, Holger. “Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches”. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 201 (2015): 171-182.

7 Zitationen in Europe PMC

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

In Space and Time: Territorial Animals are Attracted to Conspecific Chemical Cues.
Campos SM, Strauss C, Martins EP., Ethology 123(2), 2017
PMID: 28413237
Describing mate preference functions and other function-valued traits.
Kilmer JT, Fowler-Finn KD, Gray DA, Höbel G, Rebar D, Reichert MS, Rodríguez RL., J Evol Biol 30(9), 2017
PMID: 28556474
Risk of predation makes foragers less choosy about their food.
Charalabidis A, Dechaume-Moncharmont FX, Petit S, Bohan DA., PLoS One 12(11), 2017
PMID: 29121652
Inheritance Pattern of Female Receptivity in Drosophila prolongata.
Hitoshi Y, Ishikawa Y, Matsuo T., Zoolog Sci 33(5), 2016
PMID: 27715421

77 References

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.


S, Behav Ecol 21(), 2010

M, 1994

SJ, 1983

NW, Behav Ecol 19(), 2008

NW, Behav Ecol 19(), 2008
Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice.
Bateson M, Healy SD., Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 20(12), 2005
PMID: 16701454

OM, Proc R Soc B 275(), 2008

R, Biol Rev 76(), 2001

I, Anim Behav 81(), 2011

M, Anim Behav 86(), 2013
Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection.
Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD., Evolution 59(4), 2005
PMID: 15926696

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0

IR, Meth Ecol Evol (), 2014

C, 1859

LR, Behav Ecol (), 2014

T, Anim Behav 45(), 1993

JA, Evolution 49(), 1995

TW, Proc R Soc Lond B 270(), 2003
Maternal effects influence the sexual behavior of sons and daughters in the zebra finch.
Forstmeier W, Coltman DW, Birkhead TR., Evolution 58(11), 2004
PMID: 15612299

KD, Anim Behav 85(), 2013

A, 2007

HC, 2002

DA, J Insect Behav 12(), 1999

TR, 1983

AV, Biol J Linn Soc 105(), 2012

A, Behav Ecol 9(), 1998

AS, Anim Behav 81(), 2011

YW, Heredity 84(), 2000

MD, Biol Rev 72(), 1997

MM, Behav Ecol 18(), 2007
Competitive speciation and costs of choosiness.
Kopp M, Hermisson J., J. Evol. Biol. 21(4), 2008
PMID: 18513357
Matched filters, mate choice and the evolution of sexually selected traits.
Kostarakos K, Hartbauer M, Romer H., PLoS ONE 3(8), 2008
PMID: 18714350

A, Ethology 119(), 2013

S, Ethology 118(), 2012

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0

S, Bioscience 62(), 2012

KP, Proc R Soc B 280(), 2013

AE, Biol J Linn Soc 83(), 2004

KM, J Insect Behav 20(), 2007

JN, Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(), 2011

NL, Genes Genom Genet 4(), 2014

D, Biol Rev 82(), 2007

D, Behav Ecol 22(), 2011

K, Ethology 115(), 2009

K, Anim Behav 64(), 2002

MG, Proc Natl Acad Sci 93(), 1996

MG, Anim Behav 70(), 2005

RL, Proc R Soc B 273(), 2006

RL, Behav Ecol 23(), 2012
Diversification under sexual selection: the relative roles of mate preference strength and the degree of divergence in mate preferences.
Rodriguez RL, Boughman JW, Gray DA, Hebets EA, Hobel G, Symes LB., Ecol. Lett. 16(8), 2013
PMID: 23809185
Curves as traits: genetic and environmental variation in mate preference functions.
Rodriguez RL, Hallett AC, Kilmer JT, Fowler-Finn KD., J. Evol. Biol. 26(2), 2012
PMID: 23252651

MM, J Comp Physiol A 198(), 2012
Heritability of and early environment effects on variation in mating preferences.
Schielzeth H, Bolund E, Forstmeier W., Evolution 64(4), 2009
PMID: 19895552
Toward an efficient and integrative analysis of limited-choice behavioral experiments.
Schilling K, Oberdick J, Schilling RL., J. Neurosci. 32(37), 2012
PMID: 22972990

MR, Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(), 2014

KL, Proc R Soc Lond B 267(), 2000

A, Phil Trans R Soc B 367(), 2012

R, Anim Behav 91(), 2014

L, J Comp Physiol A 194(), 2008
Measuring female mating preferences.
Wagner WE., Anim Behav 55(4), 1998
PMID: 9632487

WE, Anim Behav 49(), 1995
Individual variation in parental care reaction norms: integration of personality and plasticity.
Westneat DF, Hatch MI, Wetzel DP, Ensminger AL., Am. Nat. 178(5), 2011
PMID: 22030734

DF, Biol Rev (), 2014
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences.
Widemo F, Sæther SA., Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 14(1), 1999
PMID: 10234244

Export

Markieren/ Markierung löschen
Markierte Publikationen

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

Dieser Datensatz im Web of Science®

Quellen

PMID: 25398575
PubMed | Europe PMC

Suchen in

Google Scholar