4.7 Article

Promiscuous mating in the harem-roosting fruit bat, Cynopterus sphinx

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 16, Pages 4093-4105

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05665.x

Keywords

Cynopterus sphinx; promiscuity; mating system simulations; Sexual selection; Standardized variance in male reproductive success

Funding

  1. NCBS-TIFR
  2. DST Young Scientist grant
  3. UGC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Observations on mating behaviours and strategies guide our understanding of mating systems and variance in reproductive success. However, the presence of cryptic strategies often results in situations where social mating system is not reflective of genetic mating system. We present such a study of the genetic mating system of a harem-forming bat Cynopterus sphinx where harems may not be true indicators of male reproductive success. This temporal study using data from six seasons on paternity reveals that social harem assemblages do not play a role in the mating system, and variance in male reproductive success is lower than expected assuming polygynous mating. Further, simulations reveal that the genetic mating system is statistically indistinguishable from promiscuity. Our results are in contrast to an earlier study that demonstrated high variance in male reproductive success. Although an outcome of behavioural mating patterns, standardized variance in male reproductive success (Im) affects the opportunity for sexual selection. To gain a better understanding of the evolutionary implications of promiscuity for mammals in general, we compared our estimates of Im and total opportunity for sexual selection (Im/If, where If is standardized variance in female reproductive success) with those of other known promiscuous species. We observed a broad range of Im/If values across known promiscuous species, indicating our poor understanding of the evolutionary implications of promiscuous mating.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available