Examples of Male Mate Choice

Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

In this chapter, what interests me most is how often male mate choice has already been documented, independent of the underlying mechanism. I am not concerned with the origin of the description: some authors express some degree of surprise that they found male preferences; other studies are motivated by theory. I also want to highlight that there is a continuum from no male contribution to the offspring to male contributions that are larger than the female contribution. Furthermore, there are differences in female quality at different levels, which can contribute to the evolution of male choice. There are many studies that infer differences in female fecundity as underlying male choice, but females can differ in many more aspects—just like males.

Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

When Darwin first proposed sexual selection theory he suggested two mechanisms: competition among males and choice by females. There is no doubt that these mechanisms are immensely important, but their mirror images have been largely underappreciated so far. In fact, males choose as well and females compete. Males choose based on female quality, often selecting mating partners that are more fecund. But male choice is also associated with changes in the sex ratio of a population and males can be choosy when they are rare. Furthermore, males sometimes invest heavily into reproduction and that too can be associated with male choice. That females compete with another, although less often with open aggression, is another understudied phenomenon. Finally, we now know that females are often ornamented, but are these ornaments under sexual selection by males? This book tries to review what we know and point to what we don’t know while pointing out the connections between male mate choice and female competition for a more complete view of sexual selection.


Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

In female choice, differences in male quality are very important. Males display to females to provide information often via costly ornaments. Females also differ in quality, but what they display to males is less clear. Also, how males evaluate differences in female quality is not well understood. From the literature on male mate choice one might conclude that female fecundity is the most important feature a female can display to a choosy male, but I argue that there must be many more features of females that are important in male mate choice, maybe even indirect benefits.


Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

In this final chapter I want to briefly recap what I presented in the previous chapters and provide a few ideas on what might be done in the future to move the field forward. All three factors I discussed as relevant in male mate choice—male investment in reproduction, sex ratios, and variability in partner quality—are still emerging fields in sexual selection research and need more theoretical and empirical work. I suggest that variability in female quality is more important and more complex than currently known. The same is true for sex ratios. On the other hand, I suggest that sheer investment in gametes may be a little less important than currently assumed. Most importantly we need to explore the interactions of these three pathways to male mate choice. Female competition and also female ornamentation are still somewhat enigmatic and both topics are likely to grow in importance for our understanding of sexual selection. I think considering male and female choice together, as well as female and male competition will ultimately provide a more complete picture of Darwinian sexual selection.


Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

In this short chapter I revisit the role that male investment might play in the evolution of male mate choice. Simply put, one might expect with more male investment into reproduction, they may be more selective about with whom they mate. If the male investment is larger than the female investment sex roles are expected to flip. This is, however, not common. But even if males almost never invest as much or more than females, in many species they do invest somewhat, or even heavily. Should this lead to choosiness in males? I will provide a few examples where choosiness may be linked to investment in males.


2001 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 1021-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine M. Jones ◽  
Pat Monaghan ◽  
Ruedi G. Nager

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lygia A. Del Matto ◽  
Renato Chaves de Macedo Rego ◽  
Eduardo S. A. Santos

Males are expected to mate with as many females as possible, but can maximize their reproductive success through strategic mating decisions. For instance, males can increase their own fitness by mating with high quality females that produce more offspring. Additionally, males can adjust mating effort based on the relative distribution of females and male competitors. To test factors that influence male mate choice, we assessed male mating decisions in the golden-web spider, Trichonephila clavipes (Nephilidae), a species in which females are polyandrous and males guard females before and after copulation occurs. We tested the hypothesis that males spend more time guarding high quality females that are spatially isolated, and when the risk of sperm competition is higher. We assessed solitary and aggregated female webs in the field and quantified female quality (i.e. female body condition), the risk of sperm competition (i.e. number of males in each female web), and mate-guarding duration (i.e. number of days each male spent in each web). We found that mate-guarding behaviour is influenced by the presence of male competitors. In addition, the type of web seems to moderately influence male mating decisions, with males spending more time guarding a female when on solitary webs. Finally, female body condition seems to play a small role in mate-guarding behaviour. As mate-guarding duration considerably increased per each additional male competitor in the web, and guarding behaviour prevents males from seeking additional mates, it seems that males do benefit from guarding females. We conclude that failing to guard a sexual partner promotes high costs derived from sperm competition, and a male cannot recover his relative loss in fertilization success by seeking and fertilizing more females. In addition, the search for more sexual partners can be constrained by possible high costs imposed by predators and fights against other males, which may explain why the type of web only moderately influenced male mate choice. Following the same rationale, if high-quality females are not easy to find and/or mating with a high-quality female demands much effort, males may search females and guard them regardless of female quality. In conclusion, the factor that most influences male mate-guarding behaviour among T. clavipes in the field is the risk of sperm competition.


2012 ◽  
Vol 159 (9) ◽  
pp. 1991-1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaro Suzuki ◽  
Chiaki Yasuda ◽  
Fumio Takeshita ◽  
Satoshi Wada

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bodhisatta Nandy ◽  
Abhilasha Joshi ◽  
Zeeshan Syed Ali ◽  
Sharmi Sen ◽  
Nagraj Guru Prasad

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document