spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online March 31, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 1453-1458 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01569
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boulcott, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Braithwaite, V. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boulcott, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Braithwaite, V. A.

The role of ultraviolet wavelengths in the mate-choice decisions of female three-spined sticklebacks

P. D. Boulcott*, K. Walton and V. A. Braithwaite

The University of Edinburgh, Institute of Cell and Animal Population Biology, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland



View larger version (43K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the two-choice apparatus used in Exps 2–4.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. (A) Transmission curves for the UV+ and UV–filters (300–700 nm). (B) Relative irradiance (log quantal flux) of full spectrum fluorescent tubes (Arcadia Ltd, UK) used in all four experiments (350–700 nm).

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Comparison of female preference according to light-filter type. Exps 1 and 3 were control experiments conducted in the absence of other conspecifics, and tested the preferences of non-reproductive and sexually receptive females, respectively. Exp. 2 tested when small shoals of conspecifics could be viewed through the two filter types. Exp. 4 tested preference when sexually responsive males could be viewed (***P<0.01). In all four experiments, preference is denoted by the proportion of time each individual spent in either of the two preference zones (UV+/UV–) where the fish was facing towards the choice compartments during the 20 min test. Values are means ± S.E.D. (N=10).

 





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005