Does a trade-off between current reproductive success and survival affect the honesty of male signalling in species with male parental care?

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 2461-2473

  Kelly, N B ^a   Alonzo, S H ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Life history; Male allocation; Parental care; Reproductive strategies; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; PARENTAL CARE; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING; SURVIVAL; TRADE-OFF;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETICS; MALE; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SURVIVAL;

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETIC FITNESS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 77958575713     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02111.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Badyaev, A.V. & Duckworth, R.A. 2003. Context-dependent sexual advertisement: plasticity in development of sexual ornamentation throughout the lifetime of a passerine bird. J. Evol. Bio. 16: 1065-1076.
4. Badyaev, A.V. & Hill, G.E. 2002. Paternal care as a conditional strategy: distinct reproductive tactics associated with elaboration of plumage ornamentation in the house finch. Behav. Ecol. 13: 591-597.
5. Bakker, T.C.M. & Mundwiler, B. 1994. Female mate choice and male red coloration in a natural three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) population. Behav. Ecol. 5: 74-80.
6. Candolin, U. 1999. The relationship between signal quality and physical condition: is sexual signalling honest in the three-spined stickleback? Anim. Behav. 58: 1261-1267.
7. Candolin, U. 2000a. Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 2425-2430.
8. Candolin, U. 2000b. Increased signalling effort when survival prospects decrease: male-male competition ensures honesty. Anim. Behav. 60: 417-422.
9. Coleman, S.W., Patricelli, G.L. & Borgia, G. 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428: 742-745.
10. Duckworth, R.A., Badyaev, A.V. & Parlow, A.F. 2003. Elaborately ornamented males avoid costly parental care in the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus): a proximate perspective. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55: 176-183.
11. Grafen, A. 1990a. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 517-546.
12. Grafen, A. 1990b. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 473-516.
13. Griggio, M., Devigili, A., Hoi, H. & Pilastro, A. 2009. Female ornamentation and directional male mate preference in the rock sparrow. Behav. Ecol. 20: 1072-1078.
14. Helfman, G.S., Collette, B.B. & Facey, D.E. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell Scientific Publishing, Oxford.
15. Houle, D. & Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 97-104.
16. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 72: 283-327.
17. Jeon, J. 2008. Evolution of parental favoritism among different-aged offspring. Behav. Ecol. 19: 344-352.
18. Kelly, N.B. & Alonzo, S.H. 2009. Will male advertisement be a reliable indicator of paternal care, if offspring survival depends on male care? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 3175-3183.
19. Kokko, H. 1998. Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265: 1871-1878.
20. Lopez, P. & Martin, J. 2005. Female Iberian wall lizards prefer male scents that signal a better cell-mediated immune response. Biol. Lett. 1: 404-406.
21. Macnair, M.R. & Parker, G.A. 1979. Models of parent-offspring conflict. III. Intra-brood conflict. Anim. Behav. 27: 1202-1209.
22. McNamara, J.M., Houston, A.I., Dos Santos, M.M., Kokko, H. & Brooks, R. 2003. Quantifying male attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 1925-1932.
23. Moller, A.P. & Jennions, M.D. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88: 401-415.
24. Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. 1998. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265: 397-407.
25. Parker, G.A., Mock, D.W. & Lamey, T.C. 1989. How selfish should stronger sibs be? Am. Nat. 133: 846-868.
26. Price, T., Schluter, D. & Heckman, N.E. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48: 187-211.
27. Stearns, S.C. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press, New York.
28. Wedekind, C. 1992. Detailed information about parasites revealed by sexual ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 247: 169-174.
29. Williams, G.C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
30. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53: 205-214.