Preference for male traits in female wolf spiders varies with the choice of available males, female age and reproductive state

By G. Uetz, S. Norton. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2007

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f4e16e4ca8951d17396e9cf4d09e9c545b5ea3cf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. E. Hebets
2. Dustin J. Wilgers
3. G. Uetz
4. Jeremy S. Gibson
5. J. Roberts
6. P. Shamble
7. Phillip W. Taylor
8. Jennifer Wesson

In Genetics

1. E. Hebets
2. Dustin J. Wilgers
3. G. Uetz
4. Jeremy S. Gibson
5. J. Roberts
6. P. Shamble
7. Jennifer Wesson
8. Phillip W. Taylor

Citations in the corpus

• Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders (2008, methodology): “Factors such as female parasite load (Poulin, 1994; Lopez, 1999; Pfennig and Tinsley, 2002), female age (Moore and Moore, 2001; Coleman et al., 2004; Uetz and Norton, 2007), female experience (Collins, 1995; Kodric-Brown and Nicoletto, 2001; Hebets, 2003; Hebets and Vink, 2007), female self-percepti”
• Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments (2011, methodology): “Females were 12–14 days post maturation when used in trials, the age at which females are most discriminating (Uetz and Norton 2007; D. Wilgers, unpublished data).”
• Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders (2009, methodology): “…has demonstrated that the male foreleg tufts in Schizocosa ocreata are condition-dependent (Uetz et al. 2002) and females are known to choose males based on tuft size and symmetry (McClintock and Uetz 1996; Scheffer et al. 1996; Uetz and Smith 1999; Persons and Uetz 2005; Uetz and Norton 2007).”
• Experience leads to preference: experienced females prefer brush-legged males in a population of syntopic wolf spiders (2007, background): “ocreata (brush-legged) from the isolated population in Ohio has recently demonstrated that female preference for brush size varies with female age (Uetz and Norton 2007).”
• Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: female response to multimodal versus unimodal signals (2009, background): “overall intensity of female response (as in Uetz & Roberts 2002; Uetz & Norton 2007 ).”
• Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult (2010, background): “Recent theoretical (Kokko& Ots 2006) as well as empirical (e.g. Schäfer & Uhl 2005; Shackleton et al. 2005; Werner & Lotem 2006; Ivy & Sakaluk 2007; Uetz & Norton 2007) findings emphasize that mate choice follows different rules depending on whether potential mates are encountered simultaneously or…”
• Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: components of male seismic signals and mating success (2008, background): “Females exposed to manipulated male visual signals (e.g. leg tufts either shaved off live males or digitally manipulated in video playback of male courtship) consistently chose males with larger tufts (McClintock & Uetz 1996; Scheffer et al. 1996; Uetz & Roberts 2002; Uetz & Norton 2007).”