Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males (original) (raw)

Nature volume 344, pages 330–333 (1990) Cite this article

Abstract

AN important problem in evolutionary biology since the time of Darwin has been to understand why females preferentially mate with males handicapped by secondary sexual ornaments1–3. One hypothesis of sexual selection theory is that these ornaments reliably reveal the male's condition4–6, which can be affected for example by parasites4,7–13. Here we show that in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) the intensity of male red breeding coloration positively correlates with physical condition. Gravid females base their active mate choice on the intensity of the male's red coloration. Choice experiments under green light prevent the use of red colour cues by females, and males that were previously preferred are now chosen no more than randomly, although the courtship behaviour of the males remains unchanged. Parasitieation causes a deterioration in the males' condition and a decrease in the intensity of their red coloration. Tests under both lighting conditions reveal that the females recognize the formerly parasitized males by the lower intensity of their breeding coloration. Female sticklebacks possibly select a male with a good capacity for paternal care14 but if there is additive genetic variation for parasite resistance, then they might also select for resistance genes, as proposed by Hamilton and Zuk4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B. (eds) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Wiley, New York, 1987).
  2. Kirkpatrick, M. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 43–70 (1987).
    Article Google Scholar
  3. Maynard-Smith, J. J. theor. Biol. 115, 1–8 (1985).
    Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
  4. Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. Science 218, 384–387 (1982).
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  5. Zahavi, A. J. theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  6. Andersson, M. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 17, 375–393 (1982).
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Read, A. F. Nature 328, 68–70 (1987).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  8. Ward, P. I. Anim. Behav. 36, 1210–1215 (1988).
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Ward, P. I. Oikos 55, 428–429 (1989).
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Read, A. F. & Harvey, P. H. Nature 339, 618–620 (1989).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  11. Pomiankowski, A. Nature 338, 115–116 (1989).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  12. Endler, J. A. & Lyles, A. M. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 246–248 (1989).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  13. Read, A. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3, 97–101 (1988).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  14. Heywood, J. S. Evolution 43, 1387–1397 (1989).
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Brush, A. H. & Reisman, H. M. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 14, 121–125 (1965).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  16. Semler, D. E. J. Zool. 165, 291–302 (1971).
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Endler, J. A. Evolution 34, 76–91 (1980).
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Endler, J. A. Env. Biol. Fish. 9, 173–190 (1983).
    Article Google Scholar
  19. Kodric-Brown, A. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 199–205 (1985).
    Article Google Scholar
  20. Houde, A. E. Evolution 41, 1–10 (1987).
    Article Google Scholar
  21. Houde, A. E. Anim. Behav. 36, 510–516 (1988).
    Article Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy, C. E. J., Endler, J. A., Poynton, S. L. & McMinn, H. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 291–295 (1987).
    Article Google Scholar
  23. Bischoff, R. J., Gould, J. L. & Rubenstein, D. I. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 253–255 (1985).
    Article Google Scholar
  24. Wootton, R. J. The Biology of the Sticklebacks (Academic, London, 1976).
    Google Scholar
  25. ter Pelkwijk, J. J. & Tinbergen, N. Z. Tierpsychol. 1, 193–200 (1937).
    Article Google Scholar
  26. van lersel, J. J. A. Behaviour Suppl. 3, 1–159 (1953).
    Google Scholar
  27. Sevenster, P. Behaviour Suppl. 9, 1–170 (1961).
    Google Scholar
  28. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry 2nd edn (Freeman, New York, 1981).
    MATH Google Scholar
  29. Long, K. D. & Houde, A. E. Ethology 82, 316–324 (1989).
    Article Google Scholar
  30. Smyth, J. D. Introduction to Animal Parasitology (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1985).
    Google Scholar
  31. Reisman, H. M. Copeia 1968, 816–826 (1968).
    Article Google Scholar
  32. Bakker, T. C. M. Behaviour 98, 1–144 (1986).
    Article Google Scholar
  33. McLennan, D. A. & McPhail, J. D. Can. J. Zool. 67, 1767–1777 (1989).
    Article Google Scholar
  34. Cronly-Dillon, J. & Sharma, S. C. J. exp. Biol. 49, 679–687 (1968).
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  35. McCallum, H. I. Parasitology 85, 475–488 (1982).
    Article Google Scholar
  36. Price, D. J. J. Fish Biol. 26, 509–519 (1985).
    Article Google Scholar
  37. Bolger, T. & Connolly, P. L. J. Fish Biol. 34, 171–182 (1989).
    Article Google Scholar
  38. Miller, R. G. Jr Beyond ANOVA, Basics of Applied Statistics (Wiley, New York, 1986).
    MATH Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bern, Zoologisches Institut, Abteilung Verhaltensökologie, Wohlenstrasse 50a, CH-3032, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland
    Manfred Milinski & Theo C. M. Bakker

Authors

  1. Manfred Milinski
  2. Theo C. M. Bakker

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milinski, M., Bakker, T. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males.Nature 344, 330–333 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/344330a0

Download citation

This article is cited by