+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Costs and benefits of female mate choice is there a lek paradox



Costs and benefits of female mate choice is there a lek paradox



American Naturalist 136(2): 230-243



Mate choice in noneconomic mating systems has been considered paradoxical because, relative to economic systems, females were thought to have "highly developed" preferences, despite males' having little to offer. Efforts to resolve this paradox have generally searched for genetic benefits of choice through either "good genes" or "runaway" coevolution. In this paper, we emphasize natural selection acting directly on females and their offspring. We argue that, although females are expected to pay lower costs in noneconomic mating systems, this need not translate into examining fewer males or spending less time in this activity. Furthermore, various direct (nongenetic) benefits may accrue. In species in which males offer benefits that are more variable, such as territories or parental care, females should evolve toward greater investment in mate choice, especially when these resources cannot be shared among females. Any tendency for females to be more selective in noneconomic mating systems, despite lower benefits, can probably be explained if the much lower costs of search, and thus net benefits, are considered. Therefore, there may be no lek paradox.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 007165644

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.2307/2462326


Related references

Economics of mate choice at leks do female waxmoths pay costs for indirect genetic benefits?. Behavioral Ecology 21.3 (May-June): 615-625, 2010

Mate choice for non-additive genetic benefits: a resolution to the lek paradox. Journal of Theoretical Biology 254(1): 147-155, 2008

Female calls in lek-mating birds: Indirect mate choice, female competition for mates, or direct mate choice?. Behavioral Ecology 13(3): 344-352, May-June, 2002

Mate Choice for Offspring Performance: Major Benefits or Minor Costs?. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 265(1412): 2297-2301, 1998

Mate choice for offspring performance: Major benefits or minor costs?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 265(1412): 2297-2301, 1998

Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Animal Behaviour 53(5): 1103-1117, 1997

Female choice and the benefits of mate guarding by male mallards. Animal Behaviour 64(4): 9-28, 2002

Female fiddler crabs settle for less the travel costs of mate choice. Animal Behaviour 76(6): 1775-1781, 2008

Secondary Sexual Ornamentation and Non-Additive Genetic Benefits of Female Mate Choice. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 274(1616): 1395-1402, 2007

Secondary sexual ornamentation and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 274(1616): 1395-1402, 2007

Female mate choice and mating costs in the polyandrous butterfly Pieris napi. Journal of Insect Behavior 8(3): 355-363, 1995

Female Resistance to Sexual Coercion Can Evolve to Preserve the Indirect Benefits of Mate Choice. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2019, 2019

Female preference and fitness benefits of mate choice in a species with dissociated sperm transfer. Animal Behaviour 78(5): 1261-1267, 2009

Female Barn Swallows Gain Indirect but not Direct Benefits through Social Mate Choice. Ethology 115(10): 939-947, 2009

Evaluating the design of mate-choice experiments: The effect of amplexus on mate choice by female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa. Animal Behaviour 51(4): 881-890, 1996