최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기Korean journal of Ichthyology = 한국어류학회지, v.24 no.4, 2012년, pp.263 - 271
전형배 (영남대학교 생명과학과) , 석호영 (영남대학교 생명과학과)
A female preference is a potentially complex function relating variation in multiple male traits with her probability of accepting the most optimal individuals as a mate. If mate preference is dominantly driven by additive fitness benefits, different females tend to be congruent in the decision of c...
김익수?최 윤?이충렬?이용주?김병직?김지현. 2005. 한국어류대도감. 교학사, 615pp.
Agbali, M., M. Reichard, A. Bryjova, J. Bryja and C. Smith. 2010. Mate choice for nonadditive genetic benefits correlate with MHC dissimilarity in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus). Evolution, 64: 1683-1696.
Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, 624pp.
Akai, Y. and R. Arai. 1998. Rhodeus sinensis, a senior synonym of R. lighti and R. uyekii (Acheilognathinae, Cyprinidae). Ichthyol. Res., 45: 105-110.
Barber, I., S. a. Arnott, V. a. Braithwaite, J. Andrew and F. a. Huntingford 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B., 268: 71-6.
Baube, C. 1997. Manipulations of signaling environment affect male competitive success in three-spined sticklebacks. Anim. Behav., 53: 819-833.
Boake, C.R.B. 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol. Ecol., 3: 173-182.
Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev., 78: 575-595.
Casalini, M., M. Agbali, M. Reichard, M. Konecna, A. Bryjova and C. Smith. 2009. Male dominance, female mate choice, and intersexual conflict in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus). Evolution, 63: 366-376.
Eberhard, W.G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, 472pp.
Endler, J. A. 1980. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution, 34: 76-91.
Fox, D. 1976. Animal Biochromes and Structural Colours. University of California Press, 433pp.
Godin, J-G. J. and L.A. Dugatkin. 1995. Variability and repeatability of female mating preference in the guppy. Anim. Behav., 49: 1427-1433.
Goodwin, T.W. 1984. The biochemistry of the carotenoids: animal, vol. 2. Chapman and Hall. 224pp.
Grether, F.G. 2000. Carotenoid limitation and mate preference evolution: a test of the indicator hypothesis in Guppies (Poecilia reticulate). Evolution, 54: 1712-1724.
Griggio, M., C. Biard, D.J. Penn and H. Hoi. 2011. Female house sparrows "count on" male genes: experimental evidence for MHC-dependent mate preference in birds. BMC Evol. Biol., 11: 44.
Hamilton, W.D. and M. Zuk. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science, 218: 384-387.
Hill, G.E. and R. Montgomerie. 1994. Plumage colour signals nutritional condition in the house finch. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B., 258: 47-52.
Houde, A.E. and A.J. Torio. 1992. Effect of parasitic infection on male color pattern and female choice in guppies. Behav. Ecol., 3: 346-351.
Hughes, K.A., F.H. Rodd and D.N. Reznick. 2005. Genetic and environmental effects on secondary sex traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). J. Evol. Biol., 18: 35-45.
Jennions, M.D. and M. Petrie. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev., 72: 283-327.
Johnstone, R.A. 1996. Multiple display in animal communication: 'backup signals' and 'multiple messages'. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 351: 329-338.
Jordan, W.C. and M.W. Bruford. 1998. New perspectives on mate choice and the MHC. Heredity, 81: 127-133.
Kodric-Brown, A. 1989. Dietary carotenoids and male mating success in the guppy: an environmental component to female choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 25: 393-401.
Kirkpatrick, M. and M. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350: 33-38.
Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M.D. Jennions and J. Morley. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B., 270: 653-664.
Kokko, H., M.D. Jennions and R. Brooks. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 37: 43-66.
Mays Jr, H.L. and G.E. Hill. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol.,19: 554-559.
Milinski, M. and T.C.M. Bakker. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature, 344: 330-333.
Milinski, M., S. Griffiths, K.M. Wegner, T.B.H. Reusch, A. Haas- Assenbaum and T. Boehm. 2005. Mate choice decision of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 102: 4414-4418.
Moller, A.P. 1990. Parasites and sexual selection: Current status of the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis. J. Evol. Biol., 3: 319-328.
Moller, A.P. 1994. Repeatability of female choice in a monogamous swallow. Anim. Behav., 47: 643-648.
Moller, A.P. and A. Pomiankowski. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 32: 167-176.
Neff, B.D. and T.E. Pitcher. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol., 14: 19-38.
Nicoletto, P.F. 1991. The relationship between male ornamentation and swimming performance in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 28: 365-370.
Putnam, M. 1992. A review of the nature, function, variability, and supply of pigments in salmonid fish. pp. 245-263 in N. Depauw and J. Joyce, eds. Aquaculture and the environment. European Aquaculture Society, Gent, Belgium.
Reichard, M., H. Liu and C. Smith. 2007. The co-evolutionary relationship between bitterling fishes and freshwater mussels: insights from interspecific comparisons. Evol. Ecol. Res., 9: 239-259.
Reichard, M., J. Bryja, M. Ondrackova, M. Davidova, P. Kaniewska and C. Smith. 2005. Sexual selection for male dominance reduces opportunities for female mate choice in the Europe-an bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Mol. Ecol., 14: 1533-1542.
Reinhold, K. 2002. Modelling the evolution of female choice strategies under inbreeding conditions. Genetica, 116: 189-195.
Reusch, T.B.H., M.A. Haberli, P.B. Aeschlimann and M. Milinski. 2001. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature, 414: 300-302.
Rowe, L. and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B., 263: 1415-1421.
Schiedt, K. 1989 New aspects of carotenoid metabolism in animals. In Carotenoids: chemistry and biology (ed. N.I. Krinsky, M.M. Mathews-Roth & R.F. Taylor), pp. 247-268. New York: Plenum Press.
Spence, R. and C. Smith. 2006. Mating preference of female zebrafish, Danio rerio, in relation to male dominance. Behav. Ecol., 17: 779-783.
Suk, H.Y. and J.C. Choe. 2008. Dynamic female preference for multiple signals in Rhinogobius brunneus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 62: 945-951.
Tomkins, J.L., J. Radwan, J.S. Kotiaho and T. Tregenza. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19: 323-328.
Tregenza, T. and N. Wedell. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol., 9: 1013-1027.
van Doorn, G.S. and F.J. Weissing. 2004. The evolution of female preferences for multiple indicators of quality. Amer. Nat., 164: 173-186.
van Oosterhout, C., R.E. Trigg, G.R. Carvalho, A.E. Magurran, L. Hauser and P.W. Shaw. 2003. Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J. Evol. Biol., 16: 273-281.
Widemo, F. and S.A. Saeher. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol., 14: 26-31.
Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J. Theo. Biol., 53: 205-214.
Zuk, M., R. Thornhill, J.D. Ligon, K. Johnson, S. Austad, S.H. Ligon, N. Thornhill and C. Costin. 1990. The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Amer. Nat., 136: 459-473.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.