Variation in female aggression in 2 three-spined stickleback populations with female throat and spine coloration.

Lengxob Yong, Brittney Lee, Jeffrey S McKinnon, Handling editor: Ingo Schlupp
Author Information
  1. Lengxob Yong: Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
  2. Brittney Lee: Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
  3. Jeffrey S McKinnon: Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.

Abstract

Despite growing interest in female ornament evolution, we still have a rudimentary understanding of female display traits relative to similar traits in males. Under one popular adaptive scenario, female ornaments are hypothesized to function in female-female competition and serve as badges of status, such that their expression is linked with elevated aggression in some cases. In this study, we investigated the relationship between 2 female ornaments-male-like red throat color and red spine coloration-and female aggression in 2 independently derived stream-resident populations of three-spined stickleback . Using simulated intrusions, we tested whether females with redder ornaments were generally more aggressive, and for variation in aggressive and social behaviors between the 2 populations. We found that the red intensity of the throat and spine did not predict aggression levels in either population, suggesting a limited role for both female ornaments during female-female interaction. The 2 populations exhibited different levels of aggressive behaviors, unrelated to the color patches. Our results suggest that variation in selective pressures between populations may promote interpopulation variance in aggressive behavior but not the correlation between female ornamentation and aggression, and raise the possibility that red coloration may have evolved through different mechanisms or processes in the 2 populations.

Keywords

References

  1. Heredity (Edinb). 2017 Feb;118(2):125-134 [PMID: 27577691]
  2. Evolution. 1980 Mar;34(2):292-305 [PMID: 28563426]
  3. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Dec 22;279(1749):4929-38 [PMID: 23097509]
  4. Ecol Lett. 2007 Sep;10(9):828-34 [PMID: 17663716]
  5. Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527(7578):367-70 [PMID: 26536112]
  6. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 25;10(3):e0120723 [PMID: 25806520]
  7. J Evol Biol. 2014 Nov;27(11):2457-67 [PMID: 25292365]
  8. Mol Ecol. 2012 Nov;21(21):5265-79 [PMID: 22681397]
  9. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2011 May;86(2):341-66 [PMID: 20636474]
  10. Heredity (Edinb). 2011 Jun;106(6):945-54 [PMID: 21081966]
  11. J Evol Biol. 2005 Mar;18(2):464-73 [PMID: 15715852]
  12. Nature. 2001 Jun 21;411(6840):944-8 [PMID: 11418857]
  13. Nature. 2009 Dec 10;462(7274):786-9 [PMID: 20010686]
  14. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Oct 28;368(1631):20130073 [PMID: 24167303]
  15. J Evol Biol. 2007 Jul;20(4):1577-90 [PMID: 17584250]
  16. G3 (Bethesda). 2015 Dec 29;6(3):579-88 [PMID: 26715094]
  17. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Aug 19;367(1600):2274-93 [PMID: 22777016]
  18. Behav Ecol. 2011 Nov;22(6):1131-1140 [PMID: 22479137]
  19. PeerJ. 2015 Apr 02;3:e872 [PMID: 25861558]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0femaleaggression2populationsornamentsredaggressivethroatspinesticklebackcolorationtraitsfemale-femalecolorthree-spinedvariationbehaviorslevelsdifferentmayDespitegrowinginterestornamentevolutionstillrudimentaryunderstandingdisplayrelativesimilarmalesonepopularadaptivescenariohypothesizedfunctioncompetitionservebadgesstatusexpressionlinkedelevatedcasesstudyinvestigatedrelationshipornaments-male-likecoloration-andindependentlyderivedstream-residentUsingsimulatedintrusionstestedwhetherfemalesreddergenerallysocialfoundintensitypredicteitherpopulationsuggestinglimitedroleinteractionexhibitedunrelatedpatchesresultssuggestselectivepressurespromoteinterpopulationvariancebehaviorcorrelationornamentationraisepossibilityevolvedmechanismsprocessesVariation:animalGasterosteusaculeatus

Similar Articles

Cited By