Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

MUTUAL MATE CHOICE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHOOSINESS

MUTUAL MATE CHOICE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHOOSINESS Sexual competition is associated closely with parental care because the sex providing less care has a higher potential rate of reproduction, and hence more to gain from competing for multiple mates. Sex differences in choosiness are not easily explained, however. The lower‐caring sex (often males) has both higher costs of choice, because it is more difficult to find replacement mates, and higher direct benefits, because the sex providing more care (usually females) is likely to exhibit more variation in the quality of contributions to the young. Because both the costs and direct benefits of mate choice increase with increasing parental care by the opposite sex, general predictions about sex difference in choosiness are difficult. Furthermore, the level of choosiness of one sex will be influenced by the choosiness of the other. Here, we present an ESS model of mutual mate choice, which explicitly incorporates differences between males and females in life history traits that determine the costs and benefits of choice, and we illustrate our results with data from species with contrasting forms of parental care. The model demonstrates that sex differences in costs of choice are likely to have a much stronger effect on choosiness than are differences in quality variation, so that the less competitive sex will commonly be more choosy. However, when levels of male and female care are similar, differences in quality variation may lead to higher levels of both choice and competition in the same sex. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Evolution Oxford University Press

MUTUAL MATE CHOICE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHOOSINESS

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/mutual-mate-choice-and-sex-differences-in-choosiness-01fD6me0z0

References (40)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Society for the Study of Evolution
ISSN
0014-3820
eISSN
1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03912.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Sexual competition is associated closely with parental care because the sex providing less care has a higher potential rate of reproduction, and hence more to gain from competing for multiple mates. Sex differences in choosiness are not easily explained, however. The lower‐caring sex (often males) has both higher costs of choice, because it is more difficult to find replacement mates, and higher direct benefits, because the sex providing more care (usually females) is likely to exhibit more variation in the quality of contributions to the young. Because both the costs and direct benefits of mate choice increase with increasing parental care by the opposite sex, general predictions about sex difference in choosiness are difficult. Furthermore, the level of choosiness of one sex will be influenced by the choosiness of the other. Here, we present an ESS model of mutual mate choice, which explicitly incorporates differences between males and females in life history traits that determine the costs and benefits of choice, and we illustrate our results with data from species with contrasting forms of parental care. The model demonstrates that sex differences in costs of choice are likely to have a much stronger effect on choosiness than are differences in quality variation, so that the less competitive sex will commonly be more choosy. However, when levels of male and female care are similar, differences in quality variation may lead to higher levels of both choice and competition in the same sex.

Journal

Evolution – Oxford University Press

Published: Aug 1, 1996

Keywords: ; ; ; ;

There are no references for this article.