Author
Listed:
- Jason R. Rohr
- Daesik Park
- Aaron M. Sullivan
- Malachy McKenna
- Catherine R. Propper
- Dale M. Madison
Abstract
Operational sex ratio (OSR) has been traditionally thought of as a force imposing competition for mates rather than also a cue used to regulate the intrasexual competition individuals encounter. To assess whether eastern red-spotted newts, Notophthalmus viridescens, could appropriately compare OSRs, we quantified field responses to traps containing four males, a sexually receptive female, four males plus a female, or nothing as a control. Early in the breeding season, males from two populations chose competitive mating opportunities over no mating opportunity at all, but generally preferred less competitive mating prospects. Later in the breeding season, as the OSR of newt populations becomes more male biased, males accordingly increased their acceptance of intrasexual competition. Females avoided groups of four males, and for both sexes, avoidance of male-biased courting groups increased their probability of amplexus courtship. We then isolated an approximately 33-kD protein from male cloacal glands that was used by males to compare OSRs. To our knowledge, this protein represents the first isolated and characterized component of an olfactory cue used to evaluate OSR. These results support two important principles regarding mating systems: (1) OSR can somewhat paradoxically be both the source imposing competition for mates and the source used to reduce it, and (2) analogous to the sex in short supply often being "choosy" selecting mates, the sex in excess (here, males) appears to be choosy about its acceptance of intrasexual competition. Copyright 2005.
Suggested Citation
Jason R. Rohr & Daesik Park & Aaron M. Sullivan & Malachy McKenna & Catherine R. Propper & Dale M. Madison, 2005.
"Operational sex ratio in newts: field responses and characterization of a constituent chemical cue,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 286-293, January.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:286-293
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:16:y:2005:i:1:p:286-293. 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.