Author
Listed:
- Stewart J. Plaistow
- Rufus A. Johnstone
- Nick Colegrave
- Matthew Spencer
Abstract
Intrasexual polymorphisms have evolved in a wide range of organisms. Most of them have been interpreted as the product of conditional strategies in which the tactic an individual adopts is determined by some aspect of state (e.g., age, size, condition). However, there are a few examples that appear to represent an evolutionarily stable mixture of heritable pure strategies that are maintained by frequency-dependent selection. In the present study, we produce a model of a mating system with two morphs: a territorial morph and a sneak morph. By varying the costs and limits associated with conditional strategies, mating skew, and the proportion of matings obtained by sneaking males, we examine the conditions that favor the evolution of conditional versus pure strategies. Contrary to current thinking, our results show that as long as either costs or limits are greater than zero, conditional strategists are never able to entirely replace pure strategists, and equilibrium populations may frequently consist of a mixture of conditional and pure strategists. Our results suggest that conditional strategists will be most frequent at intermediate levels of mating skew. Polymorphisms in which conditional strategists are rare or absent are most likely to evolve when mating skew is extremely high, the costs and limits of plasticity are very high, or the benefits of being conditional are very low. The limited data available suggest that high mating skew is probably the most important factor. Copyright 2004.
Suggested Citation
Stewart J. Plaistow & Rufus A. Johnstone & Nick Colegrave & Matthew Spencer, 2004.
"Evolution of alternative mating tactics: conditional versus mixed strategies,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(4), pages 534-542, July.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:534-542
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
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:15:y:2004:i:4:p:534-542. 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.