Author
Listed:
- Emily R A Cramer
- Emma I Greig
- Sara A Kaiser
- Niels Dingemanse
Abstract
Extrapair paternity should contribute to sexual selection by increasing the number of potential mates available to each individual. Potential copulation partners are, however, limited by their proximity. Spatial constraints may therefore reduce the impact of extrapair paternity on sexual selection. We tested the effect of spatial constraints on sexual selection by simulating extrapair copulations for 15 species of socially monogamous songbirds with varying rates of extrapair paternity. We compared four metrics of sexual selection between simulated populations without spatial constraints and populations where extrapair copulations were restricted to first- and second-order neighbors. Counter to predictions, sexual selection as measured by the Bateman gradient (the association between the number of copulation partners and offspring produced) increased under spatial constraints. In these conditions, repeated extrapair copulations between the same individuals led to more offspring per copulation partner. In contrast, spatial constraints did somewhat reduce sexual selection—as measured by the opportunity for selection, s’max, and the selection gradient on male quality—when the association between simulated male quality scores and copulation success (e.g., female preferences or male–male competition) was strong. Sexual selection remained strong overall in those populations even under spatial constraints. Spatial constraints did not substantially reduce sexual selection when the association between male quality and copulation success was moderate or weak. Thus, spatial constraints on extrapair copulations are insufficient to explain the absence of strong selection on male traits in many species.
Suggested Citation
Emily R A Cramer & Emma I Greig & Sara A Kaiser & Niels Dingemanse, 2020.
"Strong sexual selection despite spatial constraints on extrapair paternity,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 31(3), pages 618-626.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:31:y:2020:i:3:p:618-626.
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:31:y:2020:i:3:p:618-626.. 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.