Predators, reproductive parasites, and the persistence of poor males on leks

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 97-107

  Hamilton, Ian M ^a   Haesler, Marcel P ^a   Taborsky, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Alternative reproductive tactics; Genetic variation; Harassment; Predation risk; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

GAME THEORY; LEK; PREDATOR; SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 28544437266     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ari099     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Alonzo SH, Warner RR, 1999. A trade-off generated by sexual conflict: Mediterranean wrasse males refuse present mates to increase future success. Behav Ecol 10:105-110.
2. Alonzo SH, Warner RR, 2000. Dynamic games and field experiments examining intra- and intersexual conflict: explaining counterintuitive mating behaviour in a Mediterranean wrasse, Symphodus ocellatus. Behav Ecol 11:56-70.
3. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Arak A, 1982. Sneaky breeders. In: Producers and scroungers, strategies of exploitation and parasitism (Barnard CJ, ed). London: Croom Helm; 154-194.
5. Beehler BM, Foster MS, 1988. Hotshots, hotspots, and female preference in the organization of lek mating systems. Am Nat 131:203-219.
6. Borgia G, 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (Blum MS, Blum NA, eds). New York: Academic Press; 19-80.
7. Boyko AR, Gibson RM, Lucas JR, 2004. How predation risk affects the temporal dynamics of avian leks: greater sage grouse versus golden eagle. Am Nat 163:154-165.
8. Breden F, Stoner G, 1987. Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidad guppy. Nature 329:831-833.
9. Bro-Jørgensen J, 2002. Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:9290-9293.
10. Bro-Jørgensen J, 2003. No peace for estrous topi cows on leks. Behav Ecol 14:521-525.
11. Carbone C, Taborsky M, 1995. Mate choice or harassment avoidance? A question of female control at the lek. Anim Behav 7:370-378.
12. Carranza J, Valencia J, 1999. Red deer females collect on male clumps at mating areas. Behav Ecol 10:525-532.
13. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA, 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49:1345-1365.
14. Clutton-Brock TH, Price OF, MacColl ADC, 1992. Mate retention, harassment, and the evolution of ungulate leks. Behav Ecol 3:234-242.
15. Coleman SW, Patricelli GL, Borgia G, 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428:742-745.
16. Fiske P, Rintmäki PT, Karvonen E, 1998. Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 9:328-338.
17. Fox EA, 2002. Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:93-101.
18. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL, 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16-36.
19. Gibson RM, Aspury AS, McDaniel LL, 2002. Active formation of mixed-species grouse leks: a role for predation in lek evolution? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2503-2507.
20. Gonçalves D, Oliveira RF, Körner K, Schlupp I, 2003. Intersexual copying by sneaker males of the peacock blenny. Anim Behav 65:355-361.
21. Grafe TU, 1997. Cost and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103-1117.
22. Gross M, 1984. Sunfish, salmon, and the evolution of alternative reproductive strategies and tactics in fishes. In: Fish reproduction: strategies and tactics (Wootton RJ, Potts CW, eds). London: Academic Press; 55-75.
23. Gross M, 1991. Salmon breeding behavior and life history evolution in changing environments. Ecology 72:1180-1186.
24. Gross M, 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92-98.
25. Höglund J, Alatalo RV, 1995. Leks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Höglund J, Robertson JGM, 1990. Female preferences, male decision rules and the evolution of leks in the great snipe Gallinago media. Anim Behav 40:15-22.
27. Höglund J, Widemo F, Sutherland WJ, Nordenfors H, 1998. Ruffs, Philomachus pugnax, and distribution models: can leks be regarded as patches? Oikos 82:370-376.
28. Hugie DM, Dill LM, 1994. Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J Fish Biol 45:151-169.
29. Hunter FM, Jones IL, 1999. The frequency and function of aquatic courtship and copulation in least, crested, whiskered, and parakeet auklets. Condor 101:518-528.
30. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, 1995. Continual changes in mate preferences. Nature 377:420-422.
31. Jennions MD, Petrie M, 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283-327.
32. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
33. Kokko H, Lindström J, Alatalo RV, Rintamäki PT, 1998. Queuing for territory positions in the lekking black grouse (Tetrao tetrix). Behav Ecol 9:376-383.
34. Kokko H, Ranta E, Ruxton G, Lundberg P, 2002. Sexually transmitted disease and the evolution of mating systems. Evolution 56:1091-1100.
35. Krause J, Ruxton GD, 2002. Living in groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Lank DB, Smith CM, Hanotte O, Burke T, Cooke F, 1995. Genetic polymorphism for alternative male mating-behaviour in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378:59-62.
37. Magurran AE, Seghers BH, 1994. A cost of sexual harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulate. Proc R Soc Lond B 258:89-92.
38. Mays HL Jr, Hill GE, 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554-559.
39. McKaye KR, 1983. Ecology and breeding behavior of a cichlid fish, Cyrtocora eucinostomus on a large lek in Lake Malawi, Africa. Environ Biol Fishes 8:81-96.
40. McKaye KR, 1984. Behavioural aspects of cichlid reproductive strategies: patterns of territoriality and brood defence in Central American substratum spawners and African mouth brooders. In: Fish reproduction: strategies and tactics (Wootton RJ, Potts CW, eds). London: Academic Press; 245-273.
41. Neff BD, 2003. Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature 422:716-719.
42. Neff BD, Pitcher TE, 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19-38.
43. Nshombo M, 1991. Occasional egg-eating by the scale-eater Plecodus straeleni (Cichlidae) of Lake Tanganyika. Environ Biol Fishes 31:207-212.
44. Oliveira RF, Carvalho N, Miranda J, Gonçalves EJ, Grober M, Santos RS, 2002. The relationship between the presence of satellite males and nest-holders' mating success in the Azorean rock-pool blenny Parablennius sanguinolenuts parvicornis. Ethology 108:223-235.
45. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP, 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:21-29.
46. Randerson JP, Jiggins FM, Hurst LD, 2000. Male killing can select for male mate choice: a novel solution to the paradox of the lek. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:867-874.
47. Reynolds JD, Côté IM, 1995. Direct selection on mate choice: female redlip blennies pay more for better mates. Behav Ecol 6:175-181.
48. Reynolds JD, Gross MR, 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230-243.
49. Roberts SC, Gosling LM, 2003. Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nat Genet 35:103-106.
50. Rowe L, Houle D, 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1415-1421.
51. Saether SA, Fiske P, Kålås JA, 1999. Pushy males and choosy females: courtship disruption and mate choice in the lekking great snipe. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1227-1234.
52. Sato T, 1986. A brood parasitic catfish of mouthbrooding cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika. Nature 323:58-59.
53. Schlupp I, McKnab R, Ryan MJ, 2001. Sexual harassment as a cost for molly females: bigger males cost less. Behaviour 138:277-286.
54. Shine R, O'Connor D, Mason RT, 2000. Sexual conflict in the snake den. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:392-401.
55. Sih A, 1998. Game theory and predator response races. In: Game theory and animal behaviour (Dugatkin LA, Reeve HK eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 221-238.
56. Stone GN, 1995. Female foraging responses to sexual harassment in the solitary bee Anthophora plumipes. Anim Behav 50:405-412.
57. Sutherland WJ, Parker GA, 1985. The distribution of unequal competitors. In: Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour (Sibly RM, Smith RH, eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 255-274.
58. Taborsky M, 1994. Sneakers, satellites, and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behaviour in fish reproduction. Adv Study Behav 23:1-100.
59. Taborsky M, 2001. The evolution of bourgeois, parasitic, and cooperative reproductive behaviors in fishes. J Hered 92:100-110.
60. Taborsky M, Hudde B, Wirtz P, 1987. Reproductive behaviour and ecology of Symphodus (Crenilabrus) ocellatus, a European wrasse with four types of males. Behaviour 102:82-118.
61. Tallamy DW, Horton LA, 1990. Costs and benefits of the egg-dumping alternative in Gargaphia lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae). Anim Behav 39:352-359.
62. Taylor PD, Williams GC, 1982. The lek paradox is not resolved. J Theor Biol 22:392-409.
63. Tewksbury JJ, Martin TE, Heil SJ, Kuehn M J, Jenkins JW, 2002. Parental care of a cowbird host: caught between the costs of egg-removal and nest predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:423-429.
64. van den Berghe EP, Wernerus F, Warner RR, 1989. Female choice and the mating cost of peripheral males. Anim Behav 38:875-884.
65. Warner RR, Dill LM, 2000. Courtship displays and coloration as indicators of safety rather than of male quality: the safety assurance hypothesis. Behav Ecol 11:444-451.
66. Warner RR, Hoffman SG, 1980. Local population size as a determinant of mating system and sexual composition in two tropical marine fishes (Thalassoma spp.). Evolution 34:508-518.
67. Werner NY, Lotem A, 2003. Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Anim Behav 66:293-298.
68. Williams GC, 1993. Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69. Wisenden BD, 1999. Alloparental care in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 9:45-70.
70. Zamudio KR, Sinervo B, 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilization as alternative male mating strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97:14427-14432.