Owner positional disadvantage in contests over mating prevents monopolization of females
The act of mating may render individuals vulnerable by inhibiting mobility and defence. While the consequences of this vulnerability for predation risk are well known, the implications for male–male contests over mating have been largely ignored. We examined the influence of vulnerability during mat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Animal behaviour 2011-10, Vol.82 (4), p.753-758 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 758 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 753 |
container_title | Animal behaviour |
container_volume | 82 |
creator | van Lieshout, Emile Elgar, Mark A. |
description | The act of mating may render individuals vulnerable by inhibiting mobility and defence. While the consequences of this vulnerability for predation risk are well known, the implications for male–male contests over mating have been largely ignored. We examined the influence of vulnerability during mating by assessing the effectiveness of asymmetries in resource-holding potential (RHP) and subjective resource value (female mating status) in determining access to females in a resident–intruder scenario. In the earwig
Euborellia brunneri, mating males are vulnerable to attack because they cannot use their armaments, and may risk breakage of their extremely elongated intromittent organs. We expected agonistic outcomes and ‘ownership’ of females to be decided entirely according to imposed asymmetries, since defeat normally induces a strong loser effect and flight responses in losers. Using behavioural assays of dyads of males contesting one female we show that, although small differences in RHP strongly affected agonistic outcomes, dominant males could not monopolize females. Through recurrent harassment, subordinate males exploited the vulnerability of mating opponents to break up copulations and generate mating opportunities. Dominant males also employed this tactic and were more effective at it. While female mating status affected resident mating duration and investment in conflict, only asymmetry in RHP affected fighting and mating outcomes. Resource owners in
E. brunneri hence experience a positional disadvantage specific to a mating context. This previously unrecognized phenomenon may provide a proximate explanation for the taxonomically widespread occurrence of attacks during copulation and the avoidance thereof.
► Dominance predicted the winner of fights and increased relative mating duration. ► Dominance did not allow monopolization of females and mating. ► Subordinate males used harassment to generate mating opportunities. ► Mechanical armaments may be ineffective during copulation. ► Nonmating males exploited a positional disadvantage of mating opponents. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_899149471</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0003347211002855</els_id><sourcerecordid>899149471</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f9bf429fe565bb8dca45cd28c9086fb16326a558f298b50fb4c4c906560c5ea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEGL1DAYhoO44Lj6E8QiiKfWJJOk6Ulk0V1hYQ_uwt7C1_TLmKFNatKprL_eDDN48OIhhCTP-_LlIeQNow2jTH3cNxB6_AFrwyljDW0bSuUzsmG0k7Xmmj8nG0rptt6Klr8gL3Pel6OSVG7I492vgKmaY_aLjwHGavAZhhXCAjusfKhsDAvmJVdxLeAEiw-7ak64YiiXUwxxjqP_Dcd4FV3lcIIR8yty4WDM-Pq8X5KHr1_ur27q27vrb1efb2srtF5q6breCd45lEr2vR4sCGkHrm1HtXI9U1uuQErteKd7SV0vrChvSipqJcL2knw49c4p_jyUQc3ks8VxhIDxkI3uOiY60bJCvvuH3MdDKl8-QkJLqqUqkDxBNsWcEzozJz9BejKMmqNtszdn2-Zo29DWFNsl9_5cDtnC6BIE6_PfMBey1ULxwr09cQ6igV0qzMP3UiRpWa1WuhCfTgQWa6vHZLL1GCwOPqFdzBD9f2b5A84dolA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>894850856</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Owner positional disadvantage in contests over mating prevents monopolization of females</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>van Lieshout, Emile ; Elgar, Mark A.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Lieshout, Emile ; Elgar, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><description>The act of mating may render individuals vulnerable by inhibiting mobility and defence. While the consequences of this vulnerability for predation risk are well known, the implications for male–male contests over mating have been largely ignored. We examined the influence of vulnerability during mating by assessing the effectiveness of asymmetries in resource-holding potential (RHP) and subjective resource value (female mating status) in determining access to females in a resident–intruder scenario. In the earwig
Euborellia brunneri, mating males are vulnerable to attack because they cannot use their armaments, and may risk breakage of their extremely elongated intromittent organs. We expected agonistic outcomes and ‘ownership’ of females to be decided entirely according to imposed asymmetries, since defeat normally induces a strong loser effect and flight responses in losers. Using behavioural assays of dyads of males contesting one female we show that, although small differences in RHP strongly affected agonistic outcomes, dominant males could not monopolize females. Through recurrent harassment, subordinate males exploited the vulnerability of mating opponents to break up copulations and generate mating opportunities. Dominant males also employed this tactic and were more effective at it. While female mating status affected resident mating duration and investment in conflict, only asymmetry in RHP affected fighting and mating outcomes. Resource owners in
E. brunneri hence experience a positional disadvantage specific to a mating context. This previously unrecognized phenomenon may provide a proximate explanation for the taxonomically widespread occurrence of attacks during copulation and the avoidance thereof.
► Dominance predicted the winner of fights and increased relative mating duration. ► Dominance did not allow monopolization of females and mating. ► Subordinate males used harassment to generate mating opportunities. ► Mechanical armaments may be ineffective during copulation. ► Nonmating males exploited a positional disadvantage of mating opponents.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3472</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8282</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.005</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANBEA8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; animal conflict ; Animal ethology ; Animal reproduction ; Arthropods ; asymmetry ; Biological and medical sciences ; copulation ; earwig ; Euborellia ; Euborellia brunneri ; females ; flight ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; harassment ; males ; mating ; ownership ; positional disadvantage ; Predation ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; resource value ; risk ; Risk assessment</subject><ispartof>Animal behaviour, 2011-10, Vol.82 (4), p.753-758</ispartof><rights>2011 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Ltd. Oct 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f9bf429fe565bb8dca45cd28c9086fb16326a558f298b50fb4c4c906560c5ea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f9bf429fe565bb8dca45cd28c9086fb16326a558f298b50fb4c4c906560c5ea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347211002855$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24578462$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Lieshout, Emile</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elgar, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><title>Owner positional disadvantage in contests over mating prevents monopolization of females</title><title>Animal behaviour</title><description>The act of mating may render individuals vulnerable by inhibiting mobility and defence. While the consequences of this vulnerability for predation risk are well known, the implications for male–male contests over mating have been largely ignored. We examined the influence of vulnerability during mating by assessing the effectiveness of asymmetries in resource-holding potential (RHP) and subjective resource value (female mating status) in determining access to females in a resident–intruder scenario. In the earwig
Euborellia brunneri, mating males are vulnerable to attack because they cannot use their armaments, and may risk breakage of their extremely elongated intromittent organs. We expected agonistic outcomes and ‘ownership’ of females to be decided entirely according to imposed asymmetries, since defeat normally induces a strong loser effect and flight responses in losers. Using behavioural assays of dyads of males contesting one female we show that, although small differences in RHP strongly affected agonistic outcomes, dominant males could not monopolize females. Through recurrent harassment, subordinate males exploited the vulnerability of mating opponents to break up copulations and generate mating opportunities. Dominant males also employed this tactic and were more effective at it. While female mating status affected resident mating duration and investment in conflict, only asymmetry in RHP affected fighting and mating outcomes. Resource owners in
E. brunneri hence experience a positional disadvantage specific to a mating context. This previously unrecognized phenomenon may provide a proximate explanation for the taxonomically widespread occurrence of attacks during copulation and the avoidance thereof.
► Dominance predicted the winner of fights and increased relative mating duration. ► Dominance did not allow monopolization of females and mating. ► Subordinate males used harassment to generate mating opportunities. ► Mechanical armaments may be ineffective during copulation. ► Nonmating males exploited a positional disadvantage of mating opponents.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>animal conflict</subject><subject>Animal ethology</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>Arthropods</subject><subject>asymmetry</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>copulation</subject><subject>earwig</subject><subject>Euborellia</subject><subject>Euborellia brunneri</subject><subject>females</subject><subject>flight</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>harassment</subject><subject>males</subject><subject>mating</subject><subject>ownership</subject><subject>positional disadvantage</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>resource value</subject><subject>risk</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><issn>0003-3472</issn><issn>1095-8282</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEGL1DAYhoO44Lj6E8QiiKfWJJOk6Ulk0V1hYQ_uwt7C1_TLmKFNatKprL_eDDN48OIhhCTP-_LlIeQNow2jTH3cNxB6_AFrwyljDW0bSuUzsmG0k7Xmmj8nG0rptt6Klr8gL3Pel6OSVG7I492vgKmaY_aLjwHGavAZhhXCAjusfKhsDAvmJVdxLeAEiw-7ak64YiiXUwxxjqP_Dcd4FV3lcIIR8yty4WDM-Pq8X5KHr1_ur27q27vrb1efb2srtF5q6breCd45lEr2vR4sCGkHrm1HtXI9U1uuQErteKd7SV0vrChvSipqJcL2knw49c4p_jyUQc3ks8VxhIDxkI3uOiY60bJCvvuH3MdDKl8-QkJLqqUqkDxBNsWcEzozJz9BejKMmqNtszdn2-Zo29DWFNsl9_5cDtnC6BIE6_PfMBey1ULxwr09cQ6igV0qzMP3UiRpWa1WuhCfTgQWa6vHZLL1GCwOPqFdzBD9f2b5A84dolA</recordid><startdate>20111001</startdate><enddate>20111001</enddate><creator>van Lieshout, Emile</creator><creator>Elgar, Mark A.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111001</creationdate><title>Owner positional disadvantage in contests over mating prevents monopolization of females</title><author>van Lieshout, Emile ; Elgar, Mark A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f9bf429fe565bb8dca45cd28c9086fb16326a558f298b50fb4c4c906560c5ea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>animal conflict</topic><topic>Animal ethology</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>Arthropods</topic><topic>asymmetry</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>copulation</topic><topic>earwig</topic><topic>Euborellia</topic><topic>Euborellia brunneri</topic><topic>females</topic><topic>flight</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>harassment</topic><topic>males</topic><topic>mating</topic><topic>ownership</topic><topic>positional disadvantage</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>resource value</topic><topic>risk</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Lieshout, Emile</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elgar, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Animal behaviour</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Lieshout, Emile</au><au>Elgar, Mark A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Owner positional disadvantage in contests over mating prevents monopolization of females</atitle><jtitle>Animal behaviour</jtitle><date>2011-10-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>753</spage><epage>758</epage><pages>753-758</pages><issn>0003-3472</issn><eissn>1095-8282</eissn><coden>ANBEA8</coden><abstract>The act of mating may render individuals vulnerable by inhibiting mobility and defence. While the consequences of this vulnerability for predation risk are well known, the implications for male–male contests over mating have been largely ignored. We examined the influence of vulnerability during mating by assessing the effectiveness of asymmetries in resource-holding potential (RHP) and subjective resource value (female mating status) in determining access to females in a resident–intruder scenario. In the earwig
Euborellia brunneri, mating males are vulnerable to attack because they cannot use their armaments, and may risk breakage of their extremely elongated intromittent organs. We expected agonistic outcomes and ‘ownership’ of females to be decided entirely according to imposed asymmetries, since defeat normally induces a strong loser effect and flight responses in losers. Using behavioural assays of dyads of males contesting one female we show that, although small differences in RHP strongly affected agonistic outcomes, dominant males could not monopolize females. Through recurrent harassment, subordinate males exploited the vulnerability of mating opponents to break up copulations and generate mating opportunities. Dominant males also employed this tactic and were more effective at it. While female mating status affected resident mating duration and investment in conflict, only asymmetry in RHP affected fighting and mating outcomes. Resource owners in
E. brunneri hence experience a positional disadvantage specific to a mating context. This previously unrecognized phenomenon may provide a proximate explanation for the taxonomically widespread occurrence of attacks during copulation and the avoidance thereof.
► Dominance predicted the winner of fights and increased relative mating duration. ► Dominance did not allow monopolization of females and mating. ► Subordinate males used harassment to generate mating opportunities. ► Mechanical armaments may be ineffective during copulation. ► Nonmating males exploited a positional disadvantage of mating opponents.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.005</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-3472 |
ispartof | Animal behaviour, 2011-10, Vol.82 (4), p.753-758 |
issn | 0003-3472 1095-8282 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_899149471 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Animal behavior animal conflict Animal ethology Animal reproduction Arthropods asymmetry Biological and medical sciences copulation earwig Euborellia Euborellia brunneri females flight Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology harassment males mating ownership positional disadvantage Predation Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry resource value risk Risk assessment |
title | Owner positional disadvantage in contests over mating prevents monopolization of females |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T01%3A30%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Owner%20positional%20disadvantage%20in%20contests%20over%20mating%20prevents%20monopolization%20of%20females&rft.jtitle=Animal%20behaviour&rft.au=van%20Lieshout,%20Emile&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=753&rft.epage=758&rft.pages=753-758&rft.issn=0003-3472&rft.eissn=1095-8282&rft.coden=ANBEA8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E899149471%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=894850856&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0003347211002855&rfr_iscdi=true |