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-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T06:24:06.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Conflict between the sexes and alternative reproductive tactics within a sex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2009

By
Suzanne H. Alonzo
Edited by
Rui F. Oliveira ,
Michael Taborsky  and
H. Jane Brockmann
Suzanne H. Alonzo
Affiliation:
427 Osborn Memorial Labs Yale University PO Box 208106 New Haven, CT 06520 USA
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 examples of male alternative reproductive strategies have been identified and studied in detail and mechanisms that can allow the maintenance of alternatives have been identified. However, very little research has considered the role of intersexual interactions in the evolution of alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs). In this chapter, I first examine how alternative reproductive tactics within a sex can lead to conflict between the sexes as well as how conflict between the sexes may influence the evolution of alternative reproductive tactics within a sex. I then describe a few empirical examples of species with alternative reproductive tactics where interactions within and between the sexes have been studied. These examples illustrate that a more complete understanding of the evolution and expression of alternatives can be gained by thinking about interactions within and between the sexes concurrently. I also discuss female alternative reproductive tactics and describe a few empirical examples. I then suggest future empirical and theoretical directions needed for a co-evolutionary understanding of the evolution of alternative reproductive behavior patterns in both males and females.

INTRODUCTION

The chapters in this book are a testament to how much we know about the evolution, expression, and diversity of alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs). A number of classic examples of alternatives within a population are now well studied and understood (e.g., Dominey 1980, Gross and Charnov 1980, Gross 1982, Lank and Smith 1987, Shuster 1989, Gross 1991, Shuster and Wade 1991, Lank et al. 1995, Widemo and Owens 1995, Sinervo and Lively 1996, Shuster and Sassaman 1997, Widemo 1998, Sinervo et al. 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
Alternative Reproductive Tactics
An Integrative Approach
 , pp. 435 - 450
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

Ahlund, M. and Andersson, M. 2001. Brood parasitism: female ducks can double their reproduction. Nature 414, 600–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahnesjo, I., Vincent, A., Alatalo, R., Halliday, T., and Sutherland, W. J. 1992. The role of females in influencing mating patterns. Behavioral Ecology 4, 187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, D. J. and Johnson, L. S. 2002. Manipulation of offspring sex ratio by second-mated female house wrens. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269, 461–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 1999. A trade-off generated by sexual conflict: Mediterranean wrasse males refuse present mates to increase future success. Behavioral Ecology 10, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. and Warner, R. R. 2000a. Allocation to mate guarding or increased sperm production in a Mediterranean wrasse. American Naturalist 156, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. and Warner, R. R. 2000b. Dynamic games and field experiments examining intra- and inter-sexual 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. 2000c. Female choice, conflict between the sexes and the evolution of male alternative reproductive behaviours. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2, 149–170.Google Scholar
Alonzo, S. H., Taborsky, M., and Wirtz, P. 2000. Male alternative reproductive behaviours in a Mediterranean wrasse, Symphodus ocellatus: evidence from otoliths for multiple life-history pathways. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2, 997–1007.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. B. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Andres, J. A. and Rivera, A. C. 2001. Survival rates in a natural population of the damselfly Ceriagrion tenellum: effects of sex and female phenotype. Ecological Entomology 26, 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andres, J. A., Sanchez-Guillen, R. A., and Rivera, A. C. 2002. Evolution of female colour polymorphism in damselflies: testing the hypotheses. Animal Behaviour 63, 677–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. 2002. Antagonstic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415, 787–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austad, S. N. 1984. A classification method of alternative reproductive behaviors and methods for field-testing ESS models. American Zoologist 24, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badyaev, A. V. and Hill, G. E. 2002. Paternal care as a conditional strategy: distinct reproductive tactics associated with elaboration of plumage ornamentation in the house finch. Behavioral Ecology 13, 591–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badyaev, A. V., Hill, G. E., Beck, M. L., et al. 2002. Sex-biased hatching order and adaptive population divergence in a passerine bird. Science 295, 316–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourke, A. F. G. 2001. Reproductive skew and split sex ratios in social hymenoptera. Evolution 55, 2131–2136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brockmann, H. J. and Grafen, A. 1989. Mate conflict and male behavior in a solitary wasp, Trypoxylon (Tryparigilum) politum (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Animal Behaviour 37, 232–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, R. 1998. The importance of mate copying and cultural inheritance of mating preferences. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 45–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cade, W. 1980. Alternative male reproductive behaviors. Florida Entomology 63, 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillaud, M. C., Boutin, M., Braendle, C., and Simon, J. C. 2002. A sex-linked locus controls wing polymorphism in males of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Heredity 89, 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calsbeek, R. and Sinervo, B. 2002. Uncoupling direct and indirect components of female choice in the wild. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 14897–14902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Candolin, U. and Reynolds, J. D. 2001. Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behavioral Ecology 12, 407–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candolin, U. and Reynolds, J. D. 2002a. Adjustments of ejaculation rates in response to risk of sperm competition in a fish, the bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269, 1549–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candolin, U. and Reynolds, J. D. 2002b. Why do males tolerate sneakers? Tests with the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51, 146–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J., and Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Parker, G. A. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology 67, 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, S. W., Patricelli, G. L., and Borgia, G. 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428, 742–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comendant, T., Sinervo, B., Svensson, E. I., and Wingfield, J. 2003. Social competition, corticosterone and survival in female lizard morphs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16, 948–955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordero, A., Carbone, S. S., and Utzeri, C. 1998. Mating opportunities and mating costs are reduced in androchrome female damselflies, Ischnura elegans (Odonata). Animal Behaviour 55, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespi, B. J. 1988. Alternative male mating tactics in a thrips: effects of sex ratio variation and body size. American Midland Naturalist 119, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Davies, N. B. 1986. Reproductive success of dunnocks, Prunella modularis, in a variable mating system. 1. Factors influencing provisioning rate, nestling weight and fledgling success. Journal of Animal Ecology 55, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. 1989. Sexual conflict and the polygamy threshold. Animal Behaviour 38, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. 1992. Dunnock Behaviour and Social Evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, N. B. and Hartley, I. R. 1996. Food patchiness, territory overlap and social systems: an experiment with dunnocks Prunella modularis. Journal of Animal Ecology 65, 837–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. and Hatchwell, B. J. 1992. The value of male parental care and its influence on reproductive allocation by males and female dunnocks. Journal of Animal Ecology 61, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. and Houston, A. I. 1986. Reproductive success of dunnocks, Prunella modularis, in a variable mating system. II. Conflicts of interest among breeding adults. Journal of Animal Ecology 55, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B., Hatchwell, B. J., Robson, T., and Burke, T. 1992. Paternity and parental effort in dunnocks, Prunella modularis: how good are male chick feeding rules?Animal Behaviour 43, 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B., Hartley, I. R., Hatchwell, B. J., and Langmore, N. E. 1996. Female control of copulations to maximize male help: a comparison of polygynandrous alpine accentors, Prunella collaris, and dunnocks, P. modularis. Animal Behaviour 51, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominey, W. J. 1980. Female mimicry in male bluegill sunfish: a genetic polymorphism?Nature 284, 546–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin, L. A. and Godin, J.-G. J. 1992. Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings in the Royal Society of London B 249, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. and Fryxell, J. M. 1992. Density depedence, frequency depedendence, and alternative nesting strategies in goldeneyes. American Naturalist 140, 621–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. and Lyon, B. E. 1998. Cooperation, conflict, and creching behavior in goldeneye ducks. American Naturalist 152, 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. and Cordero, C. 2003. Sexual conflict and female choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 438–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, M. 1994. Tests of hypotheses for female-limited polymorphism in the damselfly, Enallagma boreal (Selys). Animal Behaviour 47, 724–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, M. R., Schalk, G., Miller, J. G., and Richardson, J. M. L. 1997. Male–female morph interactions in the damselfly Nehalennia irene (Hagen). Canadian Journal of Zoology 75, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, A. and Montgomerie, R. D. 1987. Alternative reproductive tactics in the territorial damselfly Calopteryx maculata: sneaking by older males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 21, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Gil, D., Graves, J., Hazon, N., and Wells, A. 1999. Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science 286, 126–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldschmidt, T., Bakker, T. C., and Bruin, E. F.-D. 1993. Selective copying in mate choice of female sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour 45, 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, E. M. 1996. Female control of offspring paternity in a western population of red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38, 267–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1982. Sneakers, satellites and parentals: polymorphic mating strategies in North American sunfishes. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 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. W. and Wootton, R. J. (eds.) Fish Reproduction: Strategies and Tactics, pp. 55–75. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1991. Evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: frequency-dependent selection in male bluegill sunfish. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 11, 6937–6940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwynne, D. T. and Snedden, A. W. 1995. Paternity and female remating in Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Ecological Entomology 20, 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerstein, P. and Parker, G. A. 1987. Sexual selection: games between the sexes. In Bradbury, J. W. and Andersson, M. B. (eds.) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 119–142. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Hardling, R. 1999. Arms races, conflict costs and evolutionary dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 196, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartley, I. R. and Davies, N. B. 1994. Limits to cooperative polyandry in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 257, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchwell, B. J. and Davies, N. B. 1990. Provisioning of nestlings by dunnocks, Prunella modularis, in pairs and trios: compensation reactions by males and females. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchwell, B. J. and Davies, N. B. 1992. An experimental study of mating competition in monogamous and polyandrous dunnocks, Prunella modularis. 2. Influence of removal and replacement experiments on mating systems. Animal Behaviour 43, 611–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattori, A. and Yamamura, N. 1995. Co-existence of subadult males and females as alternative tactics of breeding post acquisition in a monogamous and protandrous anemonefish. Evolutionary Ecology 9, 292–303.CrossRefGoogle 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
Houston, A. I., Szekely, T., and McNamara, J. M. 2005. Conflict between parents over care. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hugie, D. M. and Lank, D. B. 1997. The resident's dilemma: a female choice model for the evolution of alternative mating strategies in lekking male ruffs (Philomachus pugnax). Behavioral Ecology 8, 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. and Simmons, L. W. 2000. Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution 54, 936–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Johnston, C. E. 1994. The benefit to some minnows of spawning in the nests of other species. Environmental Biology of Fishes 40, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. G., Walker, D., Kvarnemo, C., Lindstroem, K., and Avise, J. C. 2001. How cuckoldry can decrease the opportunity for sexual selection: data and theory from a genetic parentage analysis of the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 9151–9156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kojola, I. 1998. Sex ratio and maternal investment in ungulates. Oikos 83, 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komdeur, J. 1994. The effect of kinship on helping in the cooperative breeding Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 256, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komdeur, J. 1996. Facultative sex ratio bias in the offspring of Seychelles warblers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 263, 661–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komdeur, J., Daan, S., Tinbergen, J., and Mateman, C. 1997. Extreme adaptive modification in sex ratio of the Seychelles warbler's eggs. Nature 385, 522–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruuk, L. E. B., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., Pemberton, J. M., and Guinness, F. E. 1999. Population density affects sex ratio variation in red deer. Nature 399, 459–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langmore, N. E. and Davies, N. B. 1997. Female dunnocks use vocalizations to compete for males. Animal Behaviour 53, 881–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langmore, N. E., Cockrem, J. F., and Candy, E. J. 2002. Competition for male reproductive investment elevates testosterone levels in female dunnocks, Prunella modularis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269, 2473–2478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lank, D. B. and Smith, C. M. 1987. Conditional lekking in ruff (Philomachus pugnax). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 20, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lank, D. B., Smith, C. M., Hanotte, O., Burke, T., and Cooke, F. 1995. Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating behaviour in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lejeune, P. 1985. Etude écoéthologique des comportements reproducteurs et sociaux des Labridae méditerranéens des genres Symphodus (Rafinesque 1810) et Coris (Lacepede 1802). Cahiers d'Ethologie Appliquée 5, 1–208.Google Scholar
Luttbeg, B. 2004. Female mate assessment and choice behavior affect the frequency of alternative male mating tactics. Behavioral Ecology 15, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. E. 1993. Conspecific brood parasitism as a flexible female reproductive tactic in American coots. Animal Behaviour 46, 911–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. E. 1998. Optimal clutch size and conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 392, 380–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. E. 2003a. Ecological and social constraints on conspecific brood parasitism by nesting female American coots (Fulica americana). Journal of Animal Ecology 72, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. E. 2003b. Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422, 495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. E., Hochachka, W. M., and Eadie, J. M. 2002. Paternity–parasitism trade-offs: a model and test of host–parasite cooperation in an avian conspecific brood parasite. Evolution 56, 1253–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. C. and Reynolds, J. D. 2002. Host species preferences by bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus, spawning in freshwater mussels and consequences for offspring survival. Animal Behaviour 63, 1029–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moczek, A. P. and Emlen, D. J. 2000. Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes?Animal Behaviour 59, 459–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nee, S. and May, R. M. 1992. Population-level consequences of conspecific brood parasitism in birds and insects. Journal of Theoretical Biology 161, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oring, L. W., Reed, J. M., and Alberico, J. A. R. 1993. Female control of paternity: more than meets the eye. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Blum, M. S. and Blum, N. A. (eds.) Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, pp. 123–166. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Part, T., Gustafsson, L., and Moreno, J. 1992. “Terminal investment” and sexual conflict in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). American Naturalist 140, 868–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pen, I., Weissing, F. J., and Daan, S. 1999. Seasonal sex ratio trend in the European kestrel: an evolutionarily stable strategy analysis. American Naturalist 153, 384–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, C. W., Warner, R. R., Shapiro, D. Y., and Marconato, A. 2001. Components of fertilization success in the bluehead wrasse. Behavioral Ecology 12, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienaar, J. and Greeff, J. M. 2003. Maternal control of offspring sex and male morphology in the Otitesella fig wasps. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qvarnstrom, A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichard, M., Jurajda, P., and Smith, C. 2004a. Male–male interference competition decreases spawning rate in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 56, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, M., Smith, C., and Jordan, W. C. 2004b. Genetic evidence reveals density-dependent mediated success of alternative mating behaviours in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Molecular Ecology 13, 1569–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, M., Bryja, J., Ondrackova, M., et al. 2005. Sexual selection for male dominance reduces opportunities for female mate choice in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Molecular Ecology 14, 1533–1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reillo, P. R. and Wise, D. H. 1988. An experimental evaluation of selection on color morphs of the polymorphic spider Enoplognatha ovata (Araneae: Theridiidae). Evolution 42, 1172–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J. D., Debuse, V. J., and Aldridge, D. C. 1997. Host specialization in an unusual symbiosis: European bitterlings spawning in freshwater mussels. Oikos 78, 539–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, D. A. 2002. Life History Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Rowe, L., Arnqvist, G., Sih, A., and Krupa, J. J. 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruppell, O. and Heinze, J. 1999. Alternative reproductive tactics in females: the case of size dimorphism in winged ant queens. Insectes Sociaux 46, 6–17.Google Scholar
Sherratt, T. N. 2001. The evolution of female-limited polymorphisms in damselflies: a signal detection model. Ecology Letters 4, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuster, S. M. 1989. Male alternative reproductive strategies in marine isopod crustacean (Paracerceis sculpta): the use of genetic markers to measure differences in fertilization success among alpha, beta and gamma males. Evolution 43, 1683–1698.Google ScholarPubMed
Shuster, S. M. and Sassaman, C. 1997. Genetic interaction between male mating strategy and sex ratio in a marine isopod. Nature 388, 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Sih, A. and Krupa, J. J. 1992. Predation risk, food deprivation and non-random mating by size in the stream water strider, Aquarius remigis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. 1998. Adaptation of maternal effects in the wild: path analysis of natural variation and experimental tests of causation. In Mousseau, T. A., Sinervo, B., and Endler, J. (eds.) Adaptive Genetic Variation in the Wild, pp. 41–64. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinervo, B. 1999. Mechanistic analysis of natural selection and a refinement of Lack's and Williams's principles. American Naturalist 154, S26–S42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. and Lively, C. M. 1996. The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution and alternative male strategies. Nature 380, 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. and Zamudio, K. R. 2001. The evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: fitness differential, heritability, and genetic correlation between the sexes. Journal of Heredity 92, 198–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinervo, B., Svensson, E., and Comendant, T. 2000. Density cycles and an offspring quantity and quality game driven by natural selection. Nature 406, 985–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinervo, B., Bleay, C., and Adamopoulou, C. 2001. Social causes of correlational selection and the resolution of a heritable throat color polymorphism in a lizard. Evolution 55, 2040–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Reynolds, J. D., Sutherland, W. J., and Jurajda, P. 2000. Adaptive host choice and avoidance of superparasitism in the spawning decisions of bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Rippon, K., Douglas, A., and Jurajda, P. 2001. A proximate cue for oviposition site choice in the bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Freshwater Biology 46, 903–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Douglas, A., and Jurajda, P. 2002. Sexual conflict, sexual selection and sperm competition in the spawning decisions of bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51, 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Reichard, M., and Jurajda, P. 2003. Assessment of sperm competition by European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 53, 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soljan, T. 1930. Die Fortplanzung und das Wachstum von Crenilabrus ocellatus (Forskal), einem Lippfisch des Mittelmeeres. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 137, 156–174.Google Scholar
Sorenson, M. D. 1991. The functional significance of parasitic egg laying and typical nesting in redhead ducks: an analysis of individual behavior. Animal Behaviour 42, 771–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sozou, P. D. and Houston, A. I. 1994. Parental effort in a mating system involving two males and two females. Journal of Theoretical Biology 171, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Svensson, E. and Nilsson, J.-A. 1996. Mate quality affects offspring sex ratio in blue tits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 263, 357–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, E. I., Abbott, J., and Hardling, R. 2005. Female polymorphism, frequency dependence, and rapid evolutionary dynamics in natural populations. American Naturalist 165, 567–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svensson, E. I., Sinervo, B., and Comendant, T. 2002. Mechanistic and experimental analysis of condition and reproduction in a polymorphic lizard. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15, 1034–1047.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 we need collective, functional terms for alternative reproductive behaviours?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 361–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M., Hudde, B., and Wirtz, P. 1987. Reproductive behavior and ecology of Symphodus ocellatus: a European wrasse with four types of male behavior. Behaviour 102, 82–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomkins, J. L. and Simmons, L. W. 2000. Sperm competition games played by dimorphic male beetles: fertilization gains with equal mating access. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267, 1547–1553.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
Berghe, E. 1990. Variable parental care in a labrid fish: how care might evolve. Ethology 84, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berghe, E. P., Wernerus, F., and Warner, R. R. 1989. Female choice and the mating cost of peripheral males. Animal Behaviour 38, 875–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossum, H., Stoks, R., and Bruyn, L. 2001. Frequency-dependent male mate harrassment and intra-specific variation in its avoidance by females of the damselfly Ischnura elegans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51, 69–75.Google Scholar
Gossum, H., Stoks, R., Matthysen, E., Valck, F. and Bruyn, L. 1999. Male choice for female colour morphs in Ischnura elegans (Odonata, Coenagrionidae): testing the hypotheses. Animal Behaviour 57, 1229–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veiga, J. P. 1990. Sexual conflict in the house sparrow: interference between polygynously mated females versus asymmetric male investment. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27, 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. R. 1997. Sperm allocation in coral reef fishes: strategies for coping with demands on sperm production. BioScience 47, 561–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. R., Shapiro, D. Y., Marcanato, A., and Petersen, C. W. 1995a. Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 262, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. R., Wernerus, F., Lejeune, P., and Berghe, E. 1995b. Dynamics of female choice for parental care in a fish species where care is facultative. Behavioral Ecology 6, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedell, N., Gage, M. J. G., and Parker, G. A. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westneat, D. F., Walters, A., McCarthy, T. M., Hatch, M. I., and Hein, W. K. 2000. Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Animal Behaviour 59, 467–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widemo, F. 1998. Alternative reproductive strategies in the ruff, Philomachus pugnax: a mixed ESS?Animal Behaviour 56, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widemo, F. and Owens, I. P. F. 1995. Lek size, male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature 373, 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamudio, K. R. and Sinervo, B. 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilization as alternative male mating strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 14427–14432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×