What data would you collect to test for sensory bias in mate choice related to armor in sticklebacks?

What data would you collect to test for sensory bias in mate choice related to armor in sticklebacks?

• A. Analyze only genome-wide SNP frequencies without considering mate choice.
• B. Compare mate preferences and assortative mating patterns across populations with different armor phenotypes, controlling for other variables.
• C. Measure predator abundance to infer selection on armor.
• D. Study growth rate in a single population under uniform conditions.

Answer: (B)

To test sensory bias in mate choice, collect data on how mating decisions relate to armor phenotype across different stickleback populations. This means measuring female mate preferences and patterns of assortative mating in populations that vary in armor (heavy vs. low armor) while carefully controlling other factors like habitat, predator presence, age, and social context. This approach directly shows whether biased sensory perception influences who gets chosen as a mate, by revealing if preferences align with the armor cue and whether those preferences persist across environments or populations. Why this is the best fit: it links the sensory system’s bias to actual mating outcomes, letting you see if armor-related cues shape mate choice. If females consistently prefer mates with a particular armor phenotype in multiple populations, that points to a sensory bias at work. If preferences don’t track armor differences or shift with environment, sensory bias is less supported. Data like genome-wide SNP frequencies alone wouldn’t capture mating decisions; measuring predator abundance targets natural selection rather than mate choice; and studying growth rate under uniform conditions misses mating behavior altogether.

To test sensory bias in mate choice, collect data on how mating decisions relate to armor phenotype across different stickleback populations. This means measuring female mate preferences and patterns of assortative mating in populations that vary in armor (heavy vs. low armor) while carefully controlling other factors like habitat, predator presence, age, and social context. This approach directly shows whether biased sensory perception influences who gets chosen as a mate, by revealing if preferences align with the armor cue and whether those preferences persist across environments or populations.

Why this is the best fit: it links the sensory system’s bias to actual mating outcomes, letting you see if armor-related cues shape mate choice. If females consistently prefer mates with a particular armor phenotype in multiple populations, that points to a sensory bias at work. If preferences don’t track armor differences or shift with environment, sensory bias is less supported.

Data like genome-wide SNP frequencies alone wouldn’t capture mating decisions; measuring predator abundance targets natural selection rather than mate choice; and studying growth rate under uniform conditions misses mating behavior altogether.