Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T21:35:06.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Alternative mating tactics and mate choice for good genes or good care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2009

By
Bryan Neff
Edited by
Rui F. Oliveira ,
Michael Taborsky  and
H. Jane Brockmann
Bryan Neff
Affiliation:
Department of Biology University of Western Ontario London, Ontario N6A 5B7 Canada
Rui F. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Instituto Superior Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon
Michael Taborsky
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
H. Jane Brockmann
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Many mating systems are characterized by male alternative life histories that utilize different mating tactics to reproduce. Bourgeois males attempt to monopolize mating access to females, and in fish, many of these males provide sole parental care to the developing young. Parasitic males use behavior patterns such as sneaking to steal fertilizations from bourgeois males. Modeling has shown that when bourgeois males provide higher genetic benefits – i.e., alleles leading to increased condition and higher fitness of their offspring – than parasitic males, females maximize both indirect and direct (parental care) benefits by mating exclusively with bourgeois males. However, when parasitic males have higher genetic benefits than bourgeois males, females must trade off genetic quality of their offspring with reduced parental care. Here I develop a model to examine such trade-offs and show that as the relative genetic benefits of parasitic versus bourgeois males increase or as the fitness benefit of parental care decreases, females maximize their fitness by having a greater proportion of their offspring sired by parasitic males. The optimal breeding situation, which maximizes individual fitness, differs for females, parasitic males, and bourgeois males and this should lead to sexual conflict. I test the model with data from bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), where parasitic males may provide greater genetic benefits to females than bourgeois males. I show that high-quality females, as measured by three phenotypic measures, spawn in nests that have higher bourgeois male paternity and their offspring subsequently receive greater parental care.

Type
Chapter
Information
Alternative Reproductive Tactics
An Integrative Approach
 , pp. 421 - 434
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alonzo, S. H. and Sinervo, B. 2001. Mate choice games, context-dependent good genes, and genetic cycles in the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. and Warner, R. R. 2000a. Dynamic games and field experiments examining intra- and intersexual conflict: explaining counterintuitive mating behavior in a Mediterranean wrasse, Symphodus ocellatus. Behavioral Ecology 11, 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. and Warner, R. R. 2000b. Female choice, conflict between the sexes and the evolution of male alternative reproductive behaviors. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2, 149–170.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415, 787–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, I. and Arnott, S. A. 2000. Spit-clutch IVF: a technique to examine indirect fitness consequences of mate preferences in sticklebacks. Behaviour 137, 1129–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (eds.) 1998. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blanckenhorn, W. U. and Hosken, D. J. 2003. Heritability of three condition surrogates in the yellow dung fly. Behavioral Ecology 14, 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. E. and Brown, J. A. 1996. Kin discrimination in salmonids. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J., and Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, R. M. and Fischer, R. U. 1991. Brood size, male fanning effort and the energetics of a nonshareable parental investment in bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus (Teleostei, Centrarchidae). Ethology 87, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, R. M., Gross, M. R., and Sargent, R. C. 1985. Parental investment decision rules: a test in bluegill sunfish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18, 59–66.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. and Brockmann, H. J. 1980. Do digger wasps commit the Concorde fallacy?Animal Behaviour 28, 892–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A., Ross, D., Omalley, S. L. C., and Burke, T. 1994. Paternal investment inversely related to degree of extra-pair in the reed bunting. Nature 371, 698–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominey, W. J. 1980. Female mimicry in male bluegill sunfish: a genetic polymorphism?Nature 284, 546–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominey, W. J. 1984. Alternative mating tactics and evolutionarily stable strategies. American Zoologist 24, 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. V. and Hedrick, P. W. 1998. Evolution and ecology of MHC molecules: from genomics to sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 305–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, J. K., Elliott, J. M., and Leggett, W. C. 1997. Predation by hydra on larval fish: field and laboratory experiments with bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Limnology and Oceanography 42, 1416–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiumera, A. C., Dewoody, J. A., Asmussen, M. A., and Avise, J. C. 2002. Estimating the proportion of offspring attributable to candidate adults. Evolutionary Ecology 16, 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, P., Neff, B. D., and Gross, M. R. 2001. Tactic-specific success in sperm competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268, 1105–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garant, D., Fontaine, P. M., Good, S. P., Dodson, J. J., and Bernatchez, L. 2002. The influence of male parental identity on growth and survival of offspring in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Evolutionary Ecology Research 4, 537–549.Google Scholar
Garant, D., Dodson, J. J., and Bernatchez, L. 2003. Differential reproductive success and heritability of alternative reproductive tactics in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Evolution 57, 1133–1141.Google Scholar
Godin, J. G. J. (ed.) 1997. Behavioral Ecology of Teleost Fishes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1982. Sneakers, satellites and parentals: polymorphic mating strategies in North American sunfishes. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychology 60, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1984. Sunfish, salmon, and the evolution of alternative reproductive strategies and tactics in fishes. In Potts, G. and Wootton, R. (eds.) Fish Reproduction: Strategies and Tactics, pp. 57–75. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1991. Evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: frequency-dependent sexual selection in male bluegill sunfish. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, M. R. and Charnov, E. L. 1980. Alternative male life histories in bluegill sunfish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77, 6937–6940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, M. R. and Repka, J. 1998. Game theory and inheritance in the conditional strategy. In Dugatkin, L. A. and Reeve, H. K. (eds.) Game Theory and Animal Behavior, pp. 168–187. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henson, S. A. and Warner, R. R. 1997. Male and female alternative reproductive behaviors in fishes: a new approach using intersexual dynamics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 571–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. and Simmons, L. W. 2001. Status-dependent selection in the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268, 2409–2414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchings, J. A. and Jones, M. E. B. 1998. Life history variation and growth rate thresholds for maturity in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55 (Suppl.), 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M. 1985. Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the sexy son. American Naturalist 125, 788–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L. W., Hunt, J., and Tomkins, J. L. 2003. Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: a quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. American Naturalist 161, 852–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lank, D. B., Smith, C. M., Hanotte, O., Burke, T., and Cooke, F. 1995. Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating behavior in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, B., Forbes, M. R., and Houle, D. 2000. Fluctuating asymmetry as a bioindicator of stress: comparing efficacy of analyses involving multiple traits. American Naturalist 155, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lister, J. S. and Neff, B. D. 2006. Paternal genetic effects on foraging decision-making under the risk of predation. Ethologist 112, 963–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mays, H. L. and Hill, G. E. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 554–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muzzall, P. M. and Peebles, C. R. 1998. Parasites of bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus, from two lakes and a summary of their parasites from Michigan. Journal of the Helminthological Society of Washington 65, 201–204.Google Scholar
Neff, B. D. 2001. Genetic paternity analysis and breeding success in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Journal of Heredity 92, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. 2003a. Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature 422, 716–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. 2003b. Paternity and condition affect cannibalistic behavior in nest-tending bluegill sunfish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54, 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. 2004a. Increased performance of offspring sired by parasitic males in bluegill sunfish. Behavioral Ecology 15, 327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. 2004b. Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 2381–2385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. and Cargnelli, L. M. 2004. Relationships between condition factors, parasite load and paternity in bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 71, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. and Gross, M. R. 2001. Dynamic adjustment of parental care in response to perceived paternity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268, 1559–1565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, B. D. and Pitcher, T. E. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology 14, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, B. D. and Sherman, P. W. 2003. Nestling recognition via direct cues by parental male bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Animal Cognition 6, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. and Sherman, P. W. 2005. In vitro fertilization reveals offspring recognition via self-referencing in a fish with paternal care and cuckoldry. Ethology 111, 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D., Repka, J., and Gross, M. R. 2000. Parentage analysis with incomplete sampling of candidate parents and offspring. Molecular Ecology 9, 515–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeve, H. K. and Keller, L. 2001. Tests of reproductive-skew models in social insects. Annual Review of Entomology 46, 347–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Repka, J. and Gross, M. R. 1995. The evolutionarily stable strategy under individual condition and tactic frequency. Journal of Theoretical Biology 176, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S. C. and Gosling, L. M. 2003. Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nature Genetics 35, 103–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, L. and Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 263, 1415–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. J., Pease, C. M., and Morris, M. R. 1992. A genetic polymorphism in the swordtail Xiphophorus nigrensis: testing the prediction of equal fitnesses. American Naturalist 139, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, R. C. and Gross, M. R. 1993. Williams' principle: an explanation of parental care in teleost fishes. In Pitcher, T. J. (ed.) The Behavior of Teleost Fishes, pp. 275–293. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, K. P., Lubjuhn, T., Sindern, J., et al. 1998. Mating system and sexual selection in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Naturwissenschaften 85, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, B. C. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15, 397–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, B. C., Arponen, H., Laurila, A., Crochet, P. A., and Merila, J. 2003. Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16, 1288–1295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shellman-Reeve, J. S. and Reeve, H. K. 2000. Extra-pair paternity as the result of reproductive transactions between paired mates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267, 2543–2546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shuster, S. M. and Wade, M. J. 1991. Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod. Nature 350, 608–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. and Lively, C. M. 1996. The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380, 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, S. G., Bult, T. P., and Haedrich, R. L. 2000. Relationships among fat weight, body weight, water weight, and condition factors in wild Atlantic salmon parr. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129, 527–538.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M. 1994. Sneakers, satellites, and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behavior in fish reproduction. Advances in the Study of Behavior 23, 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M. 1997. Bourgeois and parasitic tactics: do I need collective, functional terms for alternative reproductive behaviors?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 361–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M. 1998. Sperm competition in fish: “bourgeois” males and parasitic spawning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 222–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Molecular Ecology 9, 1013–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, pp. 136–179. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.Google Scholar
Welch, A. M. 2004. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57, 883–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, A. M., Semlitsch, R. D., and Gerhardt, H. C. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280, 1928–1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westneat, D. F. and Sherman, P. W. 1993. Parentage and the evolution of parental behavior. Behavioral Ecology 4, 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittingham, L. A., Taylor, P. D., and Robertson, R. J. 1992. Confidence of paternity and male parental care. American Naturalist 139, 1115–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×