Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: It is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 462-464

  Hosken, D J ^a   Blanckenhorn, W U ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032881620     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/10.4.462     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P, 1999. Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature 397:151-154.
2. Bateman AJ, 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368.
3. Bateson P, 1983. Mate choice. London: Cambridge University Press.
4. Birkhead TR, Fletcher F, 1995. Male phenotype and ejaculate quality in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:329-334.
5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP, 1992. Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. London: Academic Press.
6. Birkhead TR, Møller AP, Sutherland WJ, 1993. Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? J Theor Biol 161:51-60.
7. Bishop JD, 1996. Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum. I. Autoradiographic investigation of sperm movements in the female reproductive tract. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:369-376.
8. Blanckenhorn WU, 1997. Effects of temperature on growth, development and diapause in the yellow dung fly - against all the rules? Oecologia 111:318-324.
9. Brown JL, 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav Ecol 8:60-65.
10. Caraco T, Martindale S, Whittam TS, 1980. An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim Behav 28:820-830.
11. Gillespie JH, 1977. Natural selection for variance in offpspring numbers: a new evolutionary principle. Am Nat 111:1010-1014.
12. Gowaty PA, 1994. Architects of sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 9:160-162.
13. Keller L, Reeve HK, 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv Stud Behav 24:291-315.
14. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broekhoven C, Dhont AA, 1992. Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494-496.
15. Liersch S, Schmid-Hempel P, 1998. Genetic variation within social insect colonies reduce parasite load. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:221-225.
16. Müller G, Ward PI, 1995. Parasitism and heterozygosity influence the secondary sexual characters of the European minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus (L.) (Cyprinidae). Ethology 100:309-319.
17. Munson L, Brown JL, Bush M, Packer C, Janssen D, Reiziss SM, Wildt DE, 1996. Genetic diversity affects testicular morphology in freeranging lions (Panthera leo) of the Serengeti Plains and Ngorongoro Crater. J Reprod Fertil 108:11-15.
18. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T, Gullberg A, Tegelström H, 1996. Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585.
19. Page RE, 1980. The evolution of multiple mating behavior by honey bee queens (Apis melifer L.). Genetics 96:263-273.
20. Page RE, Metcalf RA, 1982. Multiple mating, sperm utilization, and social evolution. Am Nat 119:263-281.
21. Parker GA, 1984. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In: Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (RL Smith, ed). London: Academic Press; 2-60.
22. Parker GA, 1992a. Marginal value theorem with exploitation time costs: diet, sperm reserves, and optimal copula duration in dung flies. Am Nat 139:1237-1256.
23. Parker GA, 1992b. Snakes and female sexuality. Nature 355:395-396.
24. Petrie M, 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:290-291.
25. Philippi T, Seger D, 1989. Hedging ones evolutionary bets, revisisted. Trends Ecol Evol 4:41-44.
26. Ricklefs RE, 1979. Ecology, 2nd ed. New York: Chiron Press.
27. Schmid-Hempel P, 1994. Infection and colony variability in social insects. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 346:313-321.
28. Sheldon BC, 1994. Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extrapair copulations by female birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:25-30.
29. Sherman PW, Seeley TD, Reeve HK, 1988. Parasites, pathogens, and polyandry in social Hymenoptera. Am Nat 131:602-610.
30. Simmons LW, 1992. Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bush cricket. Nature 358:61-63.
31. Stockley P, 1997. No evidence of sperm selection by female common shrews. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1497-1500.
32. Stockley P, Searle J B, Macdonal, DW, Jones CS, 1993. Female multiple mating behaviour in the common shrew as a strategy to reduce inbreeding. Proc R Soc Lond B 254:173-179.
33. Thornhill R, Alcock J, 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
34. Tooby J, 1982. Pathogens, polymorphisms, and the evolution of sex. J Theor Biol 97:557-576.
35. Watson PJ, 1991. Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigiosa. Anim Behav 41:343-360.
36. Watson PJ, 1997. Multi-male mating and female choice increase offspring growth in the spider Neriene litigiosa (Linyphidae). Anim Behav 55:387-403.
37. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC, 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.
38. Wildt DE, Bush M, Goodrowe KL, Paker C, Pusey AE, Brown JL, Joslin P, O'Brien SJ, 1987. Reproductive and genetic consequences of founding isolated lion populations. Nature 329:328-331.
39. Williams GC, 1975. Sex and evolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
40. Willson MF, 1990. Sexual selection in plants and animals. Trends Ecol Evol 5:210-214.
41. Yasui Y, 1998. The 'genetic benefits' of multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246-250.
42. Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1996. The evolution of polyandry. I. Intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711-1717.
43. Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1997. The evolution of polyandry. II. Post-copulatory defence against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69-75.