IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i5p1015-1019.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should females prefer males with elaborate nests?

Author

Listed:
  • Topi K. Lehtonen
  • Bob B.M. Wong

Abstract

It is widely assumed that when males alone are responsible for nest building, nest characteristics should reflect the quality of its owner and that the nest itself should be an important cue in female choice. This, however, does not always have to be the case if, for example, nest attributes are an unreliable reflection of male quality. Here, we investigate whether females should prefer nest characteristics in a small marine fish, the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Previous findings suggest that female sand gobies prefer males that possess well-built nests (based on the amount of sand piled on top). It was unclear, however, whether females chose males based on the quality of the nest per se or some other, correlated quality of the builder. In the current study, we found conflicting evidence of whether males in good condition are able to bring a greater percentage of eggs to the hatching stage. In a field investigation, we also found that the relationship between body condition and the degree of nest construction was temporally unstable. Furthermore, when we experimentally disentangled nest quality from other male traits, we showed that females did not prefer to spawn with males that had the most elaborate nests. Together, these results suggest that females do not necessarily prefer males based on nest characteristics and may, instead, rely on multiple cues when choosing mates, the relative importance of which should vary depending on context. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Topi K. Lehtonen & Bob B.M. Wong, 2009. "Should females prefer males with elaborate nests?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(5), pages 1015-1019.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:5:p:1015-1019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp091
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:5:p:1015-1019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.