4.3 Article

Do audience effects lead to relaxed male sexual harassment?

期刊

BEHAVIOUR
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 1739-1758

出版社

BRILL
DOI: 10.1163/000579509X12483520922124

关键词

audience effect; communication networks; foraging; sexual-asexual coexistence; sexual conflict; sperm competition

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [PL 470/1-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several recent studies reported on so-called audience effects in male Atlantic mollies (Poecilia mexicana), in which the visual presence of a potential rival affects male sexual activity. We asked whether and how audience effects interact with male sexual harassment. Poecilia mexicana almost constantly attempt to mate, while females are mostly non-responsive to male approaches. Females flee from this sexual harassment and, thus, are more vigilant in the presence of males, so females may have hampered feeding opportunities. Do audience effects lead to altered male sexual harassment? Focal females were given an opportunity to feed in the presence of a male or a female partner and the difference in feeding times was interpreted as an effect caused by male harassment. Tests were conducted without an audience (1), or an audience male was visually presented either directly inside the test tank (2), or further away (in an adjoining compartment (3)). We found that levels of pre-mating behaviour did not vary significantly among treatments, but males exhibited more copulation attempts (thrusting) in treatment (3), suggesting that males respond to increased risk of sperm competition with higher sperm expenditure. Females fed less (and started feeding later) when a harassing partner male was around, and this effect was not dependent on the audience treatment, but, overall, females spent more time feeding (and started feeding earlier) when an audience was presented. Hence, feeding time reductions appear to be independent of audience effects, but perceived 'safety in numbers' may lead to increased foraging in larger groups.

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

4.3
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