4.5 Article

Alternative reproductive tactics and status-dependent selection

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 566-570

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ari030

Keywords

alternative reproductive tactic; best of a bad job; conditional strategy; cuckoldry; mixed strategy; status-dependent selection; switch-point; territoriality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The status-dependent selection model on alternative reproductive tactics predicts a single switch-point in status: usually all players above some status (e.g., competitive ability) should practice the tactic with the higher average payoff, while those below that point should make the best of a bad job by practicing the alternative, lower payoff tactic. Many empirical studies indeed show a relationship between status and tactic choice, but they do not conform to this single switch-point prediction. I modify the status-dependent selection model by considering status-dependent fitness that is mediated, at least in part, by resource acquisition (e.g., status-based competition for territories or nuptial gifts). With variation in resource quality, predicted tactic-choice distributions change: a high-status male may be territorial on a high-quality territory, a lower status male may practice an alternative tactic, and an even lower status male may be territorial on a low-quality territory. Tactic choice thus alternates as in many empirical studies and can appear to be but is not actually stochastic. As the number of theoretically predicted switch-points increases, however, mixed or mixed-conditional strategies should become more prevalent. While alternative tactics will likely usually differ in mean payoff, viewing alternative reproductive tactics as inherently better or worse (e.g., viewing cuckoldry as worse-the best of a bad job) is misleading if not tempered with awareness that payoff can vary greatly within tactics and overlap between tactics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available