IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v14y2003i6p802-806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates?

Author

Listed:
  • Edward H. Morrow
  • Go¨ran Arnqvist
  • Scott Pitnick

Abstract

Recent studies have documented male traits that cause physical harm to their mates during copulation. Such harm has been suggested to either (1) arise as a negative pleiotropic side effect of adaptations that give males a reproductive advantage in another context or (2) represent a male adaptation per se. In other words, male traits that cause harm to their mates may become established despite the fact that they cause harm or because they do so. A critical assumption of the latter hypotheses is that females respond to infliction of harm in a manner that is beneficial to their mates: by reducing their propensity to remate and/or by elevating their current reproductive rate. In the present study, we test this assumption by experimentally inflicting various forms of harm to females immediately after copulation in three different insect species. We reveal that females do not delay remating or increase their reproductive rate after being harmed but, on the contrary, remate sooner and lay fewer eggs in some cases. We conclude that selection for infliction of harm to females per se is unlikely. Instead, available empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that harmful male traits arise as negative pleiotropic side effects of adaptations that yield other selective advantages to males during reproductive competition. Copyright 2003.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward H. Morrow & Go¨ran Arnqvist & Scott Pitnick, 2003. "Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 14(6), pages 802-806, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:6:p:802-806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arg073
    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:14:y:2003:i:6:p:802-806. 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.