IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v21y2010i4p861-867.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The predation cost of female resistance

Author

Listed:
  • Claire A. McLean
  • Adnan Moussalli
  • Devi Stuart-Fox

Abstract

Mating costs to females can result in female reluctance to mate and the evolution of seemingly costly rejection strategies. The costs of mating have been widely studied; however, the costs of resistance have rarely been quantified. In the Lake Eyre dragon, Ctenophorus maculosus, gravid females flip over onto their backs to prevent superfluous matings. In doing so, they compromise their camouflage as females have bright orange ventral coloration during the breeding season. Visual models confirmed that resisting females are much more conspicuous to birds, their primary predator, than unresisting females. We assessed the predation risk of female resistance via a large-scale field experiment using model female lizards. Although the flipped over, orange models were more conspicuous to visual predators, they were attacked significantly less than cryptic models. It appears that predators avoid the bright females, possibly because they do not recognize orange individuals as food or avoid rare, conspicuously colored prey. Thus, conspicuous female rejection displays may be maintained in part by apostatic selection, in which predators form a search image for and preferentially attack more common prey types. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire A. McLean & Adnan Moussalli & Devi Stuart-Fox, 2010. "The predation cost of female resistance," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(4), pages 861-867.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2010:i:4:p:861-867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arq072
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:21:y:2010:i:4:p:861-867. 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.