Behavioural profiles: individual consistency in male mating behaviour under varying sex ratios

2007 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 1545-1550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit Magellan ◽  
Anne E. Magurran
2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukie Sato ◽  
Maurice W. Sabelis ◽  
Martijn Egas ◽  
Farid Faraji

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noritaka Hirohashi ◽  
Noriyosi Sato ◽  
Yoko Iwata ◽  
Satoshi Tomano ◽  
Md Nur E Alam ◽  
...  

Male animals are not given equal mating opportunities under competitive circumstances. Small males often exhibit alternative mating behaviours and produce spermatozoa of higher quality to compensate for their lower chances of winning physical contests against larger competitors [1]. Because the reproductive benefits of these phenotypes depend on social status/agonistic ranks that can change during growth or aging [2], sperm traits should be developed/switched into fitness optima according to their prospects. However, reproductive success largely relies upon social contexts arising instantaneously from intra- and inter-sexual interactions, which deter males from developing extreme traits and instead favour behavioural plasticity. Nevertheless, the extent to which such plasticity influences developmentally regulated alternative sperm traits remains unexplored. Squids of the family Loliginidae are excellent models to investigate this, because they show sophisticated alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs) by which small males, known as “sneakers”, produce longer spermatozoa and perform extra-pair copulation to attach their sperm packages near the female seminal receptacle (SR). In contrast, large “consort” males have shorter spermatozoa and copulate via pair-bonding to insert their sperm packages near the internal female oviduct [3]. In addition, plasticity in male mating behaviour is common in some species while it is either rare or absent in others. Thus, squid ARTs display a broad spectrum of adaptive traits with a complex repertoire in behaviour, morphology and physiology [3].


2009 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-François Lemaître ◽  
Thierry Rigaud ◽  
Stéphane Cornet ◽  
Loïc Bollache

2002 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Niemeitz ◽  
Ralf Kreutzfeldt ◽  
Manfred Schartl ◽  
Jakob Parzefall ◽  
Ingo Schlupp

2011 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley Raveh ◽  
Dik Heg ◽  
F. Stephen Dobson ◽  
David W. Coltman ◽  
Jamieson C. Gorrell ◽  
...  

Polar Biology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 1649-1656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrine S. Hoset ◽  
Yngve Espmark ◽  
Marie Lier ◽  
Tommy Haugan ◽  
Morten I. Wedege ◽  
...  

Behaviour ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 109 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 200-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Greenfield ◽  
Todd E. Shelly

AbstractAlternative tactics of male mating behaviour, broadly classifiable as "dominant/ territorial" versus "subordinate/non-territorial", have now been described for numerous species. Furthermore, across diverse taxa the mating tactics of subordinate/non-territorial males often appear as one of two distinct types, satellite or transient behaviour. Despite general recognition of this dichotomy, though, little effort has been made to identify the circumstances under which one of these behaviours is adopted over the other. We compared the mating systems of two congeneric species of desert grasshoppers (genus Ligurotettix) to investigate specifically the role of resource dispersion in shaping the behaviour of subordinate males. The utility of the comparative approach derives from two basic similarities between the species: both Ligurotettix coquilletti and Ligurotettix planum feed almost exclusively on a single host plant species, and the majority of males in both species defend individual host plants to gain access to females. However, the two species are associated with host plants that are dispersed very differently; i.e., L. coquilletti encounter a small number of large plants and L. planum a large number of small ones. In L. coquilletti, subordinate males, individuals noted by their lack of success in aggression and in obtaining matings, were characterized as satellites that remained silent on host plants defended by territorial males. Subordinate males in L. planum, however, were transients that sang regularly but moved frequently among different host plants. We propose that this behavioural discrepancy results from (1) the large difference between the number of potential female encounter sites (i.e., individual host plants) available to the males of the two species and (2) the large difference between the sizes of resource patches defended by the two species, which influences the ability of dominant males to eject subordinates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document