Conditional monogyny: female quality predicts male faithfulness.

Klaas W Welke, Stefanie M Zimmer, Jutta M Schneider
Author Information
  1. Klaas W Welke: Zoological Institute, University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146, Hamburg, Germany. klaaso@web.de.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Male monogyny in the absence of paternal investment is arguably one of the most puzzling mating systems. Recent evidence suggests that males of monogynous species adjust their life-history and their mating decision to shifting spatial and temporal selection regimes. In the cannibalistic wasp spider Argiope bruennichi males can be either monogynous or mate with a maximum of two females. We studied factors underlying male mating decisions in a natural population over a whole mating season. We documented all matings and categorized the males into single-mated and double-mated monogynous as well as bigynous males.
RESULTS: We found that all categories were continuously present with relatively stable frequencies despite changes in the operational sex ratio. Males were more likely monogynous when copulating with relatively heavy and old females and otherwise bigynous.
CONCLUSION: Our results imply that males make conditional mating decisions based on the quality of the first female they encounter but do not adjust their mating tactic to the local selection regime.

References

  1. Zoology (Jena). 2007;110(5):398-408 [PMID: 17869076]
  2. Evolution. 2007 Jun;61(6):1301-15 [PMID: 17542841]
  3. J Evol Biol. 2005 May;18(3):629-41 [PMID: 15842492]
  4. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2010 Mar 8;49(11):2037-40 [PMID: 20146290]
  5. Science. 1977 Jul 15;197(4300):215-23 [PMID: 327542]
  6. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Jun 1;13(6):222-7 [PMID: 21238275]
  7. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Oct;11(10):404-8 [PMID: 21237898]
  8. Integr Comp Biol. 2005 Nov;45(5):838-47 [PMID: 21676835]
  9. J Theor Biol. 2008 Feb 7;250(3):524-31 [PMID: 18045619]
  10. Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Sep 7;276(1670):3105-11 [PMID: 19515667]
  11. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2005 Aug;80(3):363-85 [PMID: 16094804]
  12. Heredity (Edinb). 1948 Dec;2(Pt. 3):349-68 [PMID: 18103134]
  13. Evolution. 2005 Jul;59(7):1400-5 [PMID: 16153026]
  14. Anim Behav. 1998 Feb;55(2):299-306 [PMID: 9480697]
  15. Annu Rev Entomol. 2005;50:395-420 [PMID: 15822204]
  16. Curr Biol. 2006 Apr 4;16(7):R242-3 [PMID: 16581497]
  17. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Apr 1;13(4):159-63 [PMID: 21238243]
  18. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2011 Feb;86(1):1-13 [PMID: 20233168]
  19. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Feb;11(2):92-8 [PMID: 21237769]
  20. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2010 Mar 8;49(11):2033-6 [PMID: 20155770]
  21. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31389 [PMID: 22319628]
  22. Biol Lett. 2010 Oct 23;6(5):585-8 [PMID: 20410027]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0matingmalesmonogynousadjustselectionfemalesmaledecisionsbigynousrelativelyqualityfemaleINTRODUCTION:MalemonogynyabsencepaternalinvestmentarguablyonepuzzlingsystemsRecentevidencesuggestsspecieslife-historydecisionshiftingspatialtemporalregimescannibalisticwaspspiderArgiopebruennichicaneithermatemaximumtwostudiedfactorsunderlyingnaturalpopulationwholeseasondocumentedmatingscategorizedsingle-mateddouble-matedwellRESULTS:foundcategoriescontinuouslypresentstablefrequenciesdespitechangesoperationalsexratioMaleslikelycopulatingheavyoldotherwiseCONCLUSION:resultsimplymakeconditionalbasedfirstencountertacticlocalregimeConditionalmonogyny:predictsfaithfulness

Similar Articles

Cited By