4.5 Article

Context-dependent relationship between a composite measure of men's mate value and ejaculate quality

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1115-1122

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/aru093

关键词

humans; phenotype-linked fertility; sperm competition; strategic ejaculation

资金

  1. ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders [CE110001021]
  2. ARC Professorial Fellowships [DP110104594, DP0877379]
  3. ARC Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award [DP130102300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Secondary sexual traits in males are recognized as having arisen in order to gain access to reproductive opportunities, through their effects on the outcome of male-male competition and female choice. The phenotype-linked fertility hypothesis proposes that ejaculate quality is honestly advertised via secondary sexual traits. Alternatively, if males have limited resources to allocate to both pre- and postcopulatory traits, males possessing attractive phenotypic or behavioral traits may produce poorer quality ejaculates. Sperm competition theory also predicts that the female phenotype will influence ejaculate quality, with males increasing investment as female attractiveness increases. However, the extent to which the male and female phenotypes interact in affecting ejaculate quality has not been widely studied. Here, we examine how male and female phenotypes influence ejaculate quality in humans. Eighty-one men, for whom we had a composite measure of overall male mate value, produced a semen sample in response to images of either highly attractive or less attractive women. We found a significant relationship between male mate value and ejaculate quality that was context dependent. Sperm motility and concentration increased with male mate value but only when men viewed images of highly attractive women. Context dependence may contribute, in part, to the often conflicting patterns of variation found in studies that test the phenotype-linked fertility hypothesis.

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