scholarly journals Polyandry provides reproductive and genetic benefits in colonising populations

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 10851-10857
Author(s):  
Rebecca C. Lewis ◽  
Michael D. Pointer ◽  
Lucy A. Friend ◽  
Ramakrishnan Vasudeva ◽  
James Bemrose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Benefits

scholarly journals Economics of mate choice at leks: do female waxmoths pay costs for indirect genetic benefits?

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 615-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Alem ◽  
Michael D. Greenfield
Keyword(s):  
Mate Choice ◽  
Genetic Benefits

Genetic benefits of extreme sequential polyandry in a terrestrial‐breeding frog

Evolution ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 1972-1985
Author(s):  
Phillip G. Byrne ◽  
Juan Diego Gaitan‐Espitia ◽  
Aimee J. Silla
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Benefits

Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences and overlap in criteria

2000 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-622
Author(s):  
John Marshall Townsend
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Physical Attractiveness ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
Sexual Attractiveness ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Sociosexual Orientation ◽  
Genetic Benefits ◽  
Physical Trait

Women with high sociosexual orientation inventory (SOI) scores may trade signs of willingness to invest for signs of ability to invest, instead of, or in addition to, genetic benefits. The target person's status traits affect women's judgments of sexual/physical attractiveness more than men's. An objective measure of a physical trait such as FA is therefore crucial in untangling the factors affecting women's judgments of attractiveness.

scholarly journals Badge Size and Extra-Pair Fertilizations in the House Sparrow

The Condor ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 342-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. R. Whitekiller ◽  
David F. Westneat ◽  
P. L. Schwagmeyer ◽  
Douglas W. Mock
Keyword(s):  
Dna Fingerprinting ◽  
House Sparrow ◽  
Passer Domesticus ◽  
House Sparrows ◽  
Genetic Benefits ◽  
Experimental Approaches ◽  
Badge Size

Abstract For House Sparrows, Passer domesticus, it has been proposed that the size of a male's throat badge correlates with his success in avoiding cuckoldry as well as obtaining extra-pair copulations (EPCs), and that females gain indirect (genetic) benefits from EPCs with large-badged males. Alternatively, female House Sparrows may engage in EPCs as a guard against their social mate's infertility. We used multi-locus DNA fingerprinting to examine paternity and found that among 41 broods and 136 offspring, 20% of the offspring were attributable to extra-pair fertilizations (EPFs). Forty-one percent of the 34 males were cuckolded; however, large-badged males were as likely to be cuckolded as small-badged males. Moreover, we found no evidence that large-badged males were inherently superior to small-badged males in terms of survivorship. We compared the prevalence of unhatched eggs in broods with and without extra-pair offspring to determine whether EPFs are associated with hatching failure. Although we detected no association between hatch failure and EPFs, enhanced fertility remains a plausible EPC benefit to females, but experimental approaches may be required to evaluate its significance.

Mate Choice for Genetic Benefits: Time to Put the Pieces Together

Ethology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Hettyey ◽  
Gergely Hegyi ◽  
Mikael Puurtinen ◽  
Herbert Hoi ◽  
János Török ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mate Choice ◽  
Genetic Benefits

Are indirect genetic benefits associated with polyandry? Testing predictions in a natural population of lemon sharks

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 783-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOSEPH D. DiBATTISTA ◽  
KEVIN A. FELDHEIM ◽  
SAMUEL H. GRUBER ◽  
ANDREW P. HENDRY
Keyword(s):  
Natural Population ◽  
Genetic Benefits ◽  
Lemon Sharks

scholarly journals No division of labour, and subfertile foundresses, in a phyllode-gluing Acacia thrips

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. J. Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Limited Ability ◽  
Indirect Benefits ◽  
Genetic Benefits ◽  
Female Quality ◽  
Colony Productivity ◽  
Animal Societies

ABSTRACTBehavioural variation is a hallmark of animal societies, which commonly contain breeders and nonbreeders, and helpers and nonhelpers. In some cases labour is divided with nonbreeders “helping” – gaining indirectly, via genetic benefits, or directly, e.g. by augmenting group size. Conversely, they may benefit by not helping, conserving energy for breeding later. However, subordinate behaviour after inheriting a breeding position is rarely evaluated.In the Australian interior, Acacia thrips Dunatothrips aneurae (Thysanoptera) glue Acacia phyllodes together into “domiciles”. Foundresses, usually sisters, build domiciles singly or communally. Some co-foundresses are nonreproductive, and their role is currently unknown. I experimentally rejected the idea that they substantially “help” by contributing to domicile repair. Nonreproductives were less likely to repair damage than reproductives. Alternatively, they may be waiting to inherit the domicile, or simply of too poor quality to reproduce or help. To test these alternatives, in the field, I allowed repairer or nonrepairer females to “inherit” a domicile by removing their nestmate(s). Thus isolated, “nonrepairer” females took much longer to repair domiciles than “repairers”, control singletons or pairs. Although ovarian condition was equivalent across groups, after 21 days nonrepairers actually laid fewer eggs compared to other groups.Thus, labour was not divided: instead reproduction and helping covaried, probably depending on female quality and the outcome of intra-domicile competition. Nonreproductive nonhelpers were not waiting to breed. Their role, and their net effect on colony productivity, remains to be shown. They are likely subfertile, and may make the “best of a bad job” by gaining indirect benefits to the best of their limited ability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document