IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v30y2019i3p658-665..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fitness costs of mating with preferred females in a scramble mating system

Author

Listed:
  • Lindsey Swierk
  • Tracy Langkilde

Abstract

Little is known about the operation of male mate choice in systems with perceived high costs to male choosiness. Scramble mating systems are one type of system in which male choice is often considered too costly to be selected. However, in many scramble mating systems, there are also potentially high rewards of male choosiness, as females vary dramatically in reproductive output and males typically mate once per season and/or per lifetime. Using scramble mating wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), we tested whether males gain fitness benefits by mating with preferred females. We conducted choice trials (1 male presented simultaneously with 2 females) and permitted males to mate with their preferred or nonpreferred female. Offspring of preferred and nonpreferred females were reared in the laboratory and field, and we quantified various fitness-relevant parameters, including survivorship and growth rates. Across multiple parameters measured, matings with preferred females produced fewer and lower-quality offspring than did those with nonpreferred females. Our results are inconsistent with the idea that mate choice confers benefits on the choosing sex. We instead propose that, in scramble systems, males will be more likely to amplex females that are easier to capture, which may correlate with lower quality but increases male likelihood of successfully mating. Such male choice may not favor increased fitness when the operational sex ratio is less biased toward males in scramble mating systems but is, instead, a bet-hedging tactic benefitting males when available females are limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindsey Swierk & Tracy Langkilde, 2019. "Fitness costs of mating with preferred females in a scramble mating system," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(3), pages 658-665.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:30:y:2019:i:3:p:658-665.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arz001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:30:y:2019:i:3:p:658-665.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.