IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v26y2015i2p311-319..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Liam R. Dougherty
  • David M. Shuker

Abstract

Quantifying the shape and strength of mating preferences is a vital component of the study of sexual selection and reproductive isolation, but the influence of experimental design on these estimates is unclear. Mating preferences may be tested using either no-choice or choice designs, and these tests may result in different estimates of preference strength. However, previous studies testing for this difference have given mixed results. To quantify the difference in the strength of mating preferences obtained using the 2 designs, we performed a meta-analysis of 38 studies on 40 species in which both experimental designs were used to test for preferences in a single species/trait/sex combination. We found that mating preferences were significantly stronger when tested using a choice design compared with a no-choice design. We suggest that this difference is due to the increased cost of rejecting partners in no-choice tests; if individuals perceive they are unlikely to remate in a no-choice situation they will be more likely to mate randomly. Importantly the use of choice tests in species in which mates are primarily encountered sequentially in the wild may lead to mating preferences being significantly overestimated. Furthermore, this pattern was seen for female mate choice but not for male mate choice, and for intraspecific choice but not for interspecies or interpopulation mate discrimination. Our study thus highlights the fact that the strength of mating preferences, and thus sexual selection, can vary significantly between experimental designs and across different social and ecological contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Liam R. Dougherty & David M. Shuker, 2015. "The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(2), pages 311-319.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:2:p:311-319.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru125
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    2. John O MartinIII & Nancy Tyler Burley, 2021. "Elucidating mutual mate choice: effects of trial design on preferences of male zebra finches," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1306-1320.
    3. Jessie C Tanner & Leigh W Simmons, 2022. "Spoiled for choice: number of signalers constrains mate choice based on acoustic signals," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(2), pages 364-375.
    4. Alice Charalabidis & François-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont & Sandrine Petit & David A Bohan, 2017. "Risk of predation makes foragers less choosy about their food," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, November.

    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:26:y:2015:i:2:p:311-319.. 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.