4.2 Article

Females benefit from multiple mating but not multiple mates in the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1961-1966

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01800.x

关键词

burying beetles; multiple mating; polyandry; sexual selection

资金

  1. NERC
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/B503709/2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Male reproductive success generally increases with number of mates but this need not be true for females. If females are the limiting sex, as few as one mate can be optimal. Despite the theoretical differences driving multiple mating in the sexes, multiple mating is the norm rather than the exception. Empirical investigations are therefore required to determine why females mate with multiple males. Both nonadaptive (correlated responses to selection on males, given the mean mating rates have to be the same) and adaptive (direct or indirect fitness benefits) can drive the evolution of multiple mating in females. Females of the burying beetle Nicorphorus vespilloides often mate repeatedly with the same male, but this appears to be a correlated response to selection on males rather than reflecting direct benefits to females for multiple mating. However, an unexamined alternative to this nonadaptive explanation is that females benefit by mating with multiple different males and therefore are selected for general promiscuity. Here we examine if mating polyandrously provides fitness benefits by examing the effects of number of mates (1, 2 or 3), mating system (monogamous, polyandrous) and their interaction. The only significant influence was mating more than once. This did not depend on type of mating. We suggest that unlike most other species examined, in N. vespilloides mating with the same male repeatedly or with several different males reflects an indiscriminate willingness to mate as a result of correlated selection on males for high rates of mating.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据