Author
Listed:
- Valentina Botto
- Sergio Castellano
Abstract
According to the good-genes hypothesis, females prefer males with costly displays because the costs are reliable indicators of genetic quality. In leks, mating costs result from a multiplicative interaction between the number of display performances (lek attendance) and the energetic expenditure associated with each display performance. If males differ in their allocation strategies between the 2 components of mating effort, the reliability of display performance as an indicator of genetic quality may be disrupted. Here, we investigate the association between male genetic quality and both lek attendance and display performance in the Italian treefrog, Hyla intermedia. We recorded lek attendance and display performance (nightly calling effort) during 2 breeding seasons, and we set up a breeding experiment to evaluate sire effects on 3 larval fitness-related traits (growth rate, age, and size at metamorphosis). Attendance and calling effort were positively correlated with each other and both with male mating success, providing no evidence for a performance-attendance trade-off at the population level. In the breeding experiment, we found some evidence for an effect of sire identity and attendance on growth rate and age at metamorphosis, but no evidence for an effect of sire calling effort. We conclude that female preference, by imposing high-quality standards for calling males, strengthens the role of endurance rivalry in male mating competition, indirectly favoring males of higher-than-average mating effort. Under this scenario, although male displays are unreliable indicators of mating quality, females nevertheless gain benefits because of the reduced risk of coming on low-quality males.
Suggested Citation
Valentina Botto & Sergio Castellano, 2016.
"Attendance, but not performance, predicts good genes in a lek-breeding treefrog,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(4), pages 1141-1148.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:4:p:1141-1148.
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:27:y:2016:i:4:p:1141-1148.. 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.