Rates of male rivalry and mate choice vary with density and determine whether size-assortative mating is absent, positive, or negative in the clown weevil, Eudiagogus pulcher

REFERENCES

• Andersson PA, Löfstedt C, Hambäck PA. 2013. Insect density–plant density relationships: a modified view of insect responses to resource concentrations. Oecologia. 173(4):1333–1344. doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2737-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 60(2):145–164. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1446
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arnqvist G, Rowe L, Krupa JJ, Sih A. 1996. Assortative mating by size: a meta-analysis of mating patterns in water striders. Evol Ecol. 10(3):265–284. doi:10.1007/BF01237684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atwell A, Wagner WE Jr. 2014. Female mate choice plasticity is affected by the interaction between male density and female age in a field cricket. Anim Behav. 98:177–183. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach CE. 1981. Host plant growth form and diversity: effects on abundance and feeding preference of a specialist herbivore, Acalymma vittata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia. 50(3):370–375. doi:10.1007/BF00344978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry KL, Kokko H. 2010. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim Behav. 80(1):163–169. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleu J, Bessa-Gomes C, Laloi D. 2012. Evolution of female choosiness and mating frequency: effects of mating cost, density, and sex ratio. Anim Behav. 83(1):131–136. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boggs CL. 1995. Male nuptial gifts: phenotypic consequences and evolutionary implications. In: Leather SR, Hardie J, editors. Insect reproduction. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; p. 215–242. doi:10.1201/9781351073608-10
   Google Scholar
• Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76(3):305–339. doi:10.1017/S1464793101005693
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghezan EA, Pinto KS, Zuanon J, Pires THS. 2019. Someone like me: size-assortative pairing and mating in an Amazonian fish, sailfin tetra Crenuchus spilurus. PLoS ONE. 14(9):e0222880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown WD. 1990. Size-assortative mating in the blister beetle Lytta magister (Coleoptera: Meloidae) is due to male and female preference for larger mates. Anim Behav. 40(5):901–909. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80992-3
   Google Scholar
• Brown WD. 1993. The cause of size-assortative mating in the leaf beetle Trirhabda canadensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 33(3):151–157. doi:10.1007/BF00216595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown WD. 1997. Courtship feeding in tree crickets increases insemination and female reproductive life span. Anim Behav. 54(6):1369–1382. doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0541
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown WD. 2008. Size-biased mating in both sexes of the black-horned tree cricket, Oecanthus nigricornis Walker (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae). J Insect Behav. 21(3):130–142. doi:10.1007/s10905-007-9112-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clotfelter ED, Curren LJ, Murphy CE. 2006. Mate choice and spawning success in the fighting fish Betta splendens: the importance of body size, display behavior and nest size. Ethology. 112(12):1170–1178. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01281.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock T, Langley P. 1997. Persistent courtship reduces male and female longevity in captive tsetse flies Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood (Diptera: Glossinidae). Behav Ecol. 8(4):392–395. doi:10.1093/beheco/8.4.392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock T, Parker GA. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q Rev Biol. 67(4):437–456. doi:10.1086/417793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock T, Vincent ACJ. 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature. 351(6321):58–60. doi:10.1038/351058a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2004. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution. 58(5):1038–1046. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00437.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespi BJ. 1989. Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim Behav. 38(6):980–1000. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80138-1
   Google Scholar
• den Hollander M, Gwynne DT. 2009. Female fitness consequences of male harassment and copulation in seed beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus. Anim Behav. 78(5):1061–1070. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edward DA, Chapman T. 2011. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. TREE. 26(12):647–654. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.07.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edward DA, Chapman T. 2012. Measuring the fitness benefits of male mate choice in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 66(8):2646–2653. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01648.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldakar OT, Dlugos MJ, Holt GP, Wilson DS, Pepper JW. 2010. Population structure influences sexual conflict in wild populations of water striders. Behaviour. 47(12):1615–1631. doi:10.1163/000579510X510520
   Google Scholar
• Estévez D, Ng TPT, Fernández-Meirama M, Voois JM, Carvajal-Rodriguez A, Williams GA, Galindo J, Rolán-Alvarez E. 2018. A novel method to estimate the spatial scale of mate choice in the wild. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 72(12):195. doi:10.1007/s00265-018-2622-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Meirama M, Estévez D, Ng TPT, Williams GA, Rolán-Alvarez E, Rolán-Alvarez E. 2017. A novel method for estimating the strength of positive mating preference by similarity in the wild. Ecol Evol. 7(9):2883–2893. doi:10.1002/ece3.2835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fourcade Y, Öckinger E. 2016. Host plant density and patch isolation drive occupancy and abundance at a butterfly’s northern range margin. Ecol Evol. 7:331–345. doi:10.1002/ece3.2597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler-Finn KD, Cruz DC, Rodríguez RL. 2017. Local population density and group composition influence the signal-preference relationship in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). J Evol Biol. 30(1):13–25. doi:10.1111/jeb.12994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler-Finn KD, Rodríguez RL. 2012. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate choice preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution. 66(2):459–468. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01446.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galipaud M, Bollache L, Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X. 2013. Assortative mating by size without a size-based preference: the female-sooner norm as a mate-guarding criterion. Anim Behav. 85(1):35–41. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham S, Chapius E, Menconcelli S, Bonel N, Sartori K, Christope A. 2015. Size-assortative mating in simultaneous hermaphrodites: an experimental test and a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 69(11):1867–1878. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-1999-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green DM. 2019. Rarity of size-assortative mating in animals: assessing the evidence with anuran amphibians. Am Nat. 193(2):279–295. doi:10.1086/701124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han CS, Jablonski PG. 2018. Increased female resistance to mating promotes the effect of mechanical constraint on latency to pair. Ecol Evol. 8(18):9152–9157. doi:10.1002/ece3.4373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han CS, Jablonski PG, Kim B, Park FC. 2010. Size-assortative mating and sexual size dimorphism are predictable from simple mechanics of mate-grasping behavior. BMC Evol Biol. 10(1):359. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-359
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harari AR, Handler AM, Landolt PJ. 1999. Size-assortative mating, male choice and female choice in the curculionid beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus. Anim Behav. 58(6):1191–1200. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1257
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Härdling R, Gosdent T, Aguilée R. 2008. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am Nat. 172(2):259–271. doi:10.1086/589452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Härdling R, Kokko H, Elwood RW. 2004. Priority versus brute force: when should males begin guarding resources? Am Nat. 163(2):240–252. doi:10.1086/381043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon JP, Hayden A, Andow DA. 2008. Absence makes the heart grow fonder: isolation enhances the frequency of mating in Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Insect Behav. 21(6):495–504. doi:10.1007/s10905-008-9145-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasenbank M, Hartley S. 2015. Weaker resource diffusion effect at coarser spatial scales observed for egg distribution of cabbage white butterflies. Oecologia. 177(2):423–430. doi:10.1007/s00442-014-3103-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedrick PW. 2017. Assortative mating and linkage disequilibrium. Genes Genomes Genet. 7(1):55–62. doi:10.1534/g3.116.034967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuring WL, Hughes M. 2022. It’s the time of the season: seasonal variation in sexually conflicted size-assortative pairing. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 76(8):107. doi:10.1007/s00265-022-03214-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höbel G, Feagles O, Moore A, Reichert M, Stratman K. 2022. Random mating for body size despite fitness benefits of size-assortative mating in a tree frog. Ethology. 128(8):580–590. doi:10.1111/eth.13316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoefler CD. 2007. Male mate choice and size-assortative pairing in a jumping spider, Phidippus clarus. Anim Behav. 73(6):943–954. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.017
   Google Scholar
• Honěc A. 1993. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos. 66(3):483–492. doi:10.2307/3544943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Bolnick DI, Kirkpatrick M. 2013. Assortative mating in animals. Am Nat. 181(6):e125–e138. doi:10.1086/670160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannesson K, Rolán-Alvarez E, Ekendahl A. 1995. Incipient reproductive isolation between two morphs of the intertidal snail Littorina saxatillis. Evolution. 49(6):1180–1190. doi:10.2307/2410443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karkarey R, Zambre A, Isvaran K, Arthur R. 2017. Alternative reproductive tactics and inverse size-assortment in a high-density fish spawning aggregation. BMC Ecol. 17(1):10. doi:10.1186/s12898-017-0120-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kelly CD. 2018. The causes and evolutionary consequences of variation in female mate choice in insects: the effects of individual state, genotypes, and environments. Curr Opinion Insect Sci. 27:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.cois.2018.01.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall-Bar JM, Iyengar VK. 2017. Sexual selection by the seashore: the roles of body size and weaponry in mate choice and competition in the maritime earwig (Anisolabis maritima). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 71(1):8. doi:10.1007/soo265-016-2233-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knell RJ, Fuhauf N, Norris KA. 1999. Conditional expression of a sexually selected trait in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis aethiopica. Ecol Entomol. 24(3):323–328. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.1999.00200.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knox TT, Scott MP. 2006. Size, operational sex ratio, and mate-guarding success of the carrion beetle, Necrophila americana. Behav Ecol. 17(1):88–96. doi:10.1093/beheco/arj004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokko H, Johnstone RA, Balshine S, Kempenaers B, Székely T. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles, and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signaling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B. 357(1419):319–330. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokko H, Rankin DJ. 2006. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density dependent effects in mating systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B. 361(1466):319–334. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1784
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovarik PW, Burke HR. 1989. Observations on the biology and ecology of two species of Eudiagogus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Southwest Nat. 34(2):196–212. doi:10.2307/3671729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lailvaux SP, Hathway J, Pomfret J, Knell RJ. 2005. Horn size predicts physical performance in the beetle Euoniticellus intermedius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Funct Ecol. 19(4):632–639. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01024.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lara DP, Oliveira LA, Azevedo IFP, Xavier MF, Silveira FAO, Carneiro MAA, Fernandes GW. 2008. Relationships between host plant architecture and gall abundance and survival. Rev Bras Entomol. 52(1):78–81. doi:10.1590/S0085-56262008000100014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis S, South A. 2012. The evolution of animal nuptial gifts. Adv Stud Behav. 44:53–97. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394288-3-00002-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu X, Chen W, Zhang L, Ma X. 2010. Mechanical constraint on size-assortative pairing success in a temperate frog: an experimental approach. Behav Process. 85(2):181–184. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maklakov AA, Bilde T, Lubin Y. 2005. Sexual conflict in the wild: elevated mating rate reduces female lifetime reproductive success. Am Nat. 165:s38–s45. doi:10.1086/429351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCauley DE. 1981. Female choice and the mating structure of a natural population of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Am Nat. 117(3):400–402. doi:10.1086/283722
   Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1984. Host plant morphology, speciation, and the economics of mate choice in the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evol Theory. 7:63–67.
   Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30(5):347–356. doi:10.1007/BF00170602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1998. Direct benefits of mate choice: fecundity enhancement and sexy sons. Anim Behav. 55(5):1191–1201. doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0681
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McLain DK, Hancock M, Hope M. 1990. Fitness effects of nonrandom mating in the ragwort seed bug, Neacoryphus bicrucis (Hemiptera Lygaeidae). Ethol Ecol Evol. 2(3):253–262. doi:10.1080/08927014.1990.9525410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Pratt AE. 1999. The cost of sexual coercion and heterospecific sexual harassment on the fecundity of a host-specific, seed-eating insect. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46(3):164–170. doi:10.1007/s002650050606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Pratt AE. 2022. The opportunity for and intensity of sexual selection in a seed bug depend on host plant dispersion. Ethol Ecol Evol. 35(2):145–166. doi:10.1080/03949370.2021.2024267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Pratt AE, Shure DJ. 2015. Size dependence of courtship effort may promote male choice and strong assortative mating in soldier beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 69(6):883–894. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-1900-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyashita T. 1994. Size-related mating and mate guarding in the orb-web spider Nephila clavata (Araneae, Araneidae). J Insect Behav. 7(3):289–296. doi:10.1007/BF01989736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montiglio P-O, Wey TW, Chang AT, Fogarty S, Sih A, Quinn J. 2016. Multiple mating reveals complex patterns of assortative mating by personality and body size. J Anim Ecol. 85(1):125–135. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12436
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moura RR, Gonzaga MO. 2018. Sex ratio and density may affect temporal variation in size-assortative mating in a neotropical ant species. Zool Anzeiger. 276:50–56. doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2018.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moura RR, Gonzaga MO. 2019. Spatial variation in sex ratio and density explains subtle changes in the strength of size-assortative mating in Edessa conterminal (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Acta Oecol. 95:86–92. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2018.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moura RR, Gonzaga MO, Pinto NS, Vasconcellos-Neto J, Requena GS. 2021. Assortative mating in space and time: patterns and biases. Ecol Lett. 24(5):1089–1102. doi:10.1111/ele.13960
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng TPT, Williams GA, Davies MS, Stafford R, Rolán-Alvarez E. 2016. Sampling scale can cause bias in positive assortative mating estimates: evidence from two intertidal snails. Biol J Linn Soc. 119(2):414–419. doi:10.1111/bij.12839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka E, Brännström Å, Svanbäck R. 2014. Assortative mating can limit the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evol Ecol. 28:1057–1074. doi:10.1007/s10682-014-9728-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okuzaki Y. 2022. Effects of body size divergence on male mating tactics in the ground beetle Carabus japonicus. Evolution. 75(9):2269–2285. doi:10.1111/evo.14302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omkar O, Afaq U. 2013. Evaluation of Darwin’s fecundity advantage hypothesis in Parthenium beetle, Zygogramma bicolorata. Insect Sci. 20(4):531–540. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7917.2012.01510.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pal P, Erlandsson J, Sköld M. 2006. Size-assortative mating and non-reciprocal copulation in a hermaphroditic intertidal limpet: test of the mate availability hypothesis. Mar Biol. 148(6):1273–1282. doi:10.1007/s00227-005-0173-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker GA. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA, editors. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. New York (NY): Academic Press; p. 123–166. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-108750-0.50010-0
   Google Scholar
• Parker GA. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 141–164.
   Google Scholar
• Parker GA. 2006. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B. 361(1466):235–259. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry JC, Sharpe DMT, Rowe L. 2009. Condition-dependent female-remating resistance generates sexual selection on male size in a ladybird beetle. Anim Behav. 77(3):743–748. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt AE, Shure DJ, McLain DK, Banderet K, Hebets E. 2017. Male and female soldier beetles relax choice for mate quality across daily courtship periods. Ethology. 123(3):175–187. doi:10.1111/eth.12585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghu S, Drew RAI, Clarke AR. 2004. Influence of host plant structure and microclimate on the abundance and behavior of a tephritid fly. J Insect Behav. 17(2):179–190. doi:10.1023/B:JOIR.0000028568.90719.2a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rankin DT, Kokko H. 2007. Do males matter? The role of males in population dynamics. Oikos. 116(2):335–348. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15451.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez RL, Rebar D, Fowler-Finn KD. 2013. The evolution and evolutionary consequences of social plasticity in mate preferences. Anim Behav. 85(5):1041–1047. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolán-Alvarez E, Carvajal-Rodriguez A, de Coo A, Cortés B, Estévez D, Ferreira M, González R, Briscoe AD. 2015. The scale-of-choice effect and how estimates of assortative mating in the wild can be biased due to heterogeneous samples. Evolution. 69(7):1845–1857. doi:10.1111/evo.12691
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe L, Arnqvist G. 1996. Analysis of the causal components of assortative mating in water striders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38(4):279–286. doi:10.1007/s002650050243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Montes G, Wang J, Ariño H, Vizmanos JL, Martínez-Solano IM. 2017. Reliable effective number of breeders/adult census size ratios in seasonal-breeding species: opportunity for integrative demographic inferences based on capture–mark–recapture data and multilocus genotypes. Ecol Evol. 7(23):10301–10314. doi:10.1002/ece3.3387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrano-Meneses MA, López-Garcia K, Carrillo-Muñoz AI. 2018. Assortative mating by size in the American rubyspot damselfly (Hetaerina americana). J Insect Behav. 31(6):585–598. doi:10.1007/s10905-018-9701-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuker DM, Ballantyne GA, Wedell N. 2006. Variation in the cost to females of the sexual conflict over mating in the seed bug, Lygaeus equestris. Anim Behav. 72(2):313–321. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.020
   Google Scholar
• South SH, Arnqvist G, Servedio MR. 2012. Female preference for male courtship effort can drive the evolution of male mate choice. Evolution. 66(12):3722–3735. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01716.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele CA, Delomas TA, Campbell MR, Powell JH. 2022. Single-parentage assignments reveal negative-assortative mating in an endangered salmonid. Ecol Evol. 12(4):e8846. doi:10.1002/ece3.8846
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland DL, Hogg ID, Waas JR. 2007. Is size assortative mating in Paracalliope fluviatilis (Crustacea: Amphipoda) explained by male-male competition or female choice? Biol J Linn Soc. 92(1):173–181. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00839.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taborsky B, Guyer L, Demus P. 2014. ‘Prudent habitat choice’: a novel mechanism of size-assortative mating. J Evol Biol. 27(6):1217–1228. doi:10.1111/jeb.12398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiple AD, Padwad SV, Dapporto L, Dennis RLH. 2010. Male mate location behavior and encounter sites in a community of tropical butterflies: taxonomic and site associations and distinctions. J Biosci. 35(4):629–646. doi:10.1007/s12038-010-0071-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuller J, de Queiroz ACM, da Luz GR, de Oliveira Silva J. 2013. Gall-forming insect attack patterns: a test of the plant vigor and the resource concentration hypotheses. Revista Biotemas. 26(1):45–51. doi:10.5007/2175-7925.2013v26n1p45
   Google Scholar
• Turlure C, Van Dyck H. 2009. On the consequences of aggressive male mate-locating behaviour and micro-climate for female host plant use in the butterfly Lycaena hippothoe. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63(11):1581–1591. doi:10.1007/s00265-009-0753-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahed K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev. 73(1):43–78. doi:10.1017/S0006323197005112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahed K. 2002. Coercive copulation in the alpine bushcricket Ananconotus alpinus Yersin (Tettigonida: Tettigoninae: Platycleidini). Ethology. 108(12):1065–1075. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00838.x
   Google Scholar
• Vallejos JG, Gomez J, Hernández-Figueroa AD, Vera R, Green DM. 2021. Fertilization success suggests random pairing in frogs with regard to body size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 75(10):140. doi:10.1007/s00265-021-03081-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venner S, Bernstein C, Dray S, Bel-Venner MC. 2010. Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am Nat. 175(6):650–661. doi:10.1086/652432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner WE Jr. 2011. Direct benefits and the evolution of female mating preferences: conceptual problems, potential solutions, and a field cricket. Adv Stud Behav. 43:273–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang D, Forstmeier W, Valcu M, Dingermanse NJ, Bulla M, Both C, Duckworth RA, Kiere LM, Karell P, Albrecht T, Kempenaers B. 2019. Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds. PLoS ONE. 17(2):e3000156. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000156
   Google Scholar
• Watson PJ, Arnqvist G, Stallman PR. 1998. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am Nat. 151(1):46–58. doi:10.1086/286101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir LK, Grant JWA, Hutchings JA. 2011. The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. Am Nat. 177(2):167–176. doi:10.1086/657918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams DD. 2007. Size-assortative pairing in the lotic amphipod Gammarus zaddachi, an examination of hypotheses and the influence of current speed. Aquat Ecol. 41(2):309–317. doi:10.1007/s10452-006-9075-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the genetics of populations. Vol. 2. The theory of gene frequencies. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar