全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2013 

Should Attractive Males Sneak: The Trade-Off between Current and Future Offspring

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057992

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Alternative reproductive tactics are predicted to be adopted by less competitive males when competition for fertilization is intense. Yet, in some species, competitively superior males use an alternative tactic alongside the conventional tactic. This can jeopardize their success through the conventional tactic, but surprisingly little attention has been paid to this cost. We investigated 1) the degree to which competitive males sneak fertilize eggs in the polygamous threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, and 2) if males balance the cost of sneaking against its benefit. We found competitive males that succeeded in establishing a territory and in attracting spawning females to perform most sneak fertilizations. However, when we reduced the benefit of sneak attempts, by reducing visibility and the success rate of sneak attempts, males sneaked less. When we increased the cost of sneak attempts, by increasing the perceived value of current offspring (by mating males to preferred females rather than unpreferred females or no females), the interest of males in sneak opportunities decreased. Intriguingly, larger males, who presumably had a higher probability of future reproduction, were more willing to risk their current offspring for sneak opportunities. These findings suggest that competitive males that are attractive to females carefully balance costs against benefits in their sneaking decisions. More broadly, our results imply that changes in the environment can influence the cost-benefit ratio of sneaking and alter the distribution of fertilizations in a population. We end with discussing the implications that alterations in sneaking behavior could have for the operation of sexual selection in changing environments.

References

[1]  Gross MR (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11: 92–98.
[2]  Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215–223.
[3]  Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
[4]  Wade MJ, Shuster SM (2004) Sexual selection: Harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. American Naturalist 164: E83–E89.
[5]  Oliveira R, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (2008) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[6]  Tomkins JL, Hazel W (2007) The status of the conditional evolutionarily stable strategy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 522–528.
[7]  Shuster SM (2011) Differences in relative fitness among alternative mating tactics might be more apparent than real. Journal of Animal Ecology 80: 905–907.
[8]  Arak A (1988) Callers and satellites in the natterjack toad: Evolutionary stable decision rules. Animal Behaviour 36: 416–432.
[9]  Sinervo B, Lively CM (1996) The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380: 240–243.
[10]  Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1995) Pair and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 37: 81–91.
[11]  Westneat DF, Mays HL (2005) Tests of spatial and temporal factors influencing extra-pair paternity in red-winged blackbirds. Molecular Ecology 14: 2155–2167.
[12]  Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Molecular Ecology 11: 2195–2212.
[13]  Townsend AK, Clark AB, McGowan KJ (2010) Direct benefits and genetic costs of extrapair paternity for female American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). American Naturalist 175: E1–E9.
[14]  Forstmeier W, Martin K, Bolund E, Schielzeth H, Kempenaers B (2011) Female extrapair mating behaviour can evolve via indirect selection on males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 10608–10613.
[15]  Briffa M, Sneddon LU (2007) Physiological constraints on contest behaviour. Functional Ecology 21: 627–637.
[16]  Birkhead TR, M?ller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. London: Academic Press.
[17]  Wootton RJ (1984) The functional biology of sticklebacks. London: Croom Helm.
[18]  Goldschmidt T, Foster SA, Sevenster P (1992) Internest distance and sneaking in three-spined stickleback. Animal Behaviour 44: 793–795.
[19]  van den Assem J (1967) Territoriality in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L.: an experimental study in intra-specific competition. Behaviour Suppl 16: 1–164.
[20]  Sargent RC (1985) Territoriality and reproductive tradeoffs in the 3-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behaviour 93: 217–226.
[21]  van Iersel JJA (1953) An analyses of the parental behaviour of the male three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Behaviour Suppl 3: 1–159.
[22]  Candolin U, Engstr?m-?st J, Salesto T (2008) Human-induced eutrophication enhances reproductive success through effects on parenting ability in sticklebacks. Oikos 117: 459–465.
[23]  Sargent RC, Gebler JB (1980) Effects of nest site concealment on hatching success, reproductive success, and paternal behaviour of the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 7: 137–142.
[24]  Mori S (1995) Factors associated with and fitness effects of nest-raiding in the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, in a natural situation. Behaviour 132: 1011–1023.
[25]  Whoriskey FG, Fitzgerald GJ (1985) Sex, cannibalism and sticklebacks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18: 15–18.
[26]  Candolin U (2000) Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 267: 2425–2430.
[27]  Griffith SC, Sheldon BC (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in the expression of sexually selected traits: neglected components of variation. Animal Behaviour 61: 987–993.
[28]  Vlieger L, Candolin U (2009) How not to be seen: does eutrophication influence stickleback sneaking behaviour? Journal of Fish Biology 75: 2163–2174.
[29]  Candolin U, Salesto T, Evers M (2007) Changed environmental conditions weaken sexual selection in sticklebacks. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 233–239.
[30]  Candolin U, Voigt HR (2001) Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation risk? Oikos 95: 225–230.
[31]  Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular Ecology 16: 1099–1106.
[32]  Candolin U (1997) Predation risk affects courtship and attractiveness of competing threespine stickleback males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41: 81–87.
[33]  Candolin U, Voigt HR (2003) Size-dependent selection on arrival times in sticklebacks: why small males arrive first. Evolution 57: 862–871.
[34]  Dingemanse NJ, Kazem AJN, Reale D, Wright J (2010) Behavioural reaction norms: animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 81–89.
[35]  Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC, Ziemba RE (2004) Behavioral syndromes: An integrative overview. Quarterly Review of Biology 79: 241–277.
[36]  Sih A, Bell AM (2008) Insights for behavioral ecology from behavioral syndromes. Advances in the Study of Behavior 38: 227–281.
[37]  Iossa G, Soulsbury CD, Baker PJ, Harris S (2008) Body mass, territory size, and life-history tactics in a socially monogamous canid, the red fox Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Mammalogy 89: 1481–1490.
[38]  Sheldon BC (1994) Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 257: 25–30.
[39]  Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
[40]  Houston AI, Szekely T, McNamara JM (2005) Conflict between parents over care. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 33–38.
[41]  Candolin U, Reynolds JD (2002) Why do males tolerate sneakers? Tests with the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 146–152.
[42]  Watters JV (2005) Can the alternative male tactics ‘fighter’ and ‘sneaker’ be considered ‘coercer’ and ‘cooperator’ in coho salmon? Animal Behaviour 70: 1055–1062.
[43]  Fu P, Neff BD, Gross MR (2001) Tactic-specific success in sperm competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 268: 1105–1112.
[44]  Reichard M, Le Comber SC, Smith C (2007) Sneaking from a female perspective. Animal Behaviour 74: 679–688.
[45]  Wootton RJ (1976) The biology of the sticklebacks: Academic Press.
[46]  Bergman M, Wiklund C (2009) Differences in mate location behaviours between residents and nonresidents in a territorial butterfly. Animal Behaviour 78: 1161–1167.
[47]  Pilastro A, Evans JP, Sartorelli S, Bisazza A (2002) Male phenotype predicts insemination success in guppies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 269: 1325–1330.
[48]  Candolin U (1999) Male-male competition facilitates female choice in sticklebacks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 266: 785–789.
[49]  Boughman JW, Rundle HD, Schluter D (2005) Parallel evolution of sexual isolation in sticklebacks. Evolution 59: 361–373.
[50]  Dzieweczynski TL, Rowland WJ (2004) Behind closed doors: use of visual cover by courting male threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Animal Behaviour 68: 465–471.
[51]  Heuschele J, Salminen T, Candolin U (2012) Habitat change influences mate search behaviour in three-spined sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour 83: 1505–1510.
[52]  Candolin U (2009) Population responses to anthropogenic disturbance: lessons from three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus in eutrophic habitats. Journal of Fish Biology 75: 2108–2121.
[53]  Tomkins JL, Hazel WN, Penrose MA, Radwan JW, LeBas NR (2011) Habitat complexity drives experimental evolution of a conditionally expressed secondary sexual trait. Current Biology 21: 569–573.
[54]  Candolin U, Heuschele J (2008) Is sexual selection beneficial during adaptation to environmental change? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23: 446–452.
[55]  Candolin U, Wong BBM (2012) Sexual selection in changing environments: consequences for individuals and populations. In: Candolin U, Wong BBM, editors. Behavioural responses to a changing world: mechanisms and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 201–215.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133