4.5 Article

Nutritional enrichment increases courtship intensity and improves mating success in male spiders

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 700-708

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp044

关键词

Araneae; condition dependence; courtship; Lycosidae; nutrient balance; nutrition; Pardosa prativaga; sexual selection; wolf spider

资金

  1. Danish Research Council Forskningsradet for Natur og Univers [272-05-0246]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of male sexual ornaments and the intensity of male courtship behavior are often used by females as criteria for mate choice and by other males to evaluate the strength of a rival. We tested the hypotheses that courtship intensity and mating success depend on the males' nutritional status (enriched or deficient) and that courtship intensity predicts mating success in males of the same nutritional status. We used wolf spiders, Pardosa prativaga, which have an elaborate display of courtship behaviors, including encircling, palp vibrations, abdomen vibrations, hopping, etc. Viability parameters indicated enhanced condition of enriched males. Mating success was higher for nutrient-enriched males in direct competition with deficient males. Enriched males had higher courtship intensity and were also larger (carapace width) but not heavier than deficient males. The statistical analysis indicated that diet effects on courtship intensity were indirect, through its effect on size. In competition tests between males of equal mass and the same diet treatment, the previously most active male (high levels of palp vibrating, abdomen vibrating, and hopping) had the highest mating success, though this result depended on male nutrient status. The widely used residual condition index (RCI) did not distinguish the treatments. It is suggested that the index is unsuitable in a situation of nutritional stress caused by nutrient imbalance. The results underscore the importance of nutrient balancing to all aspects of performance also in predatory animals.

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

4.5
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