Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 1984 24(2):309-319; doi:10.1093/icb/24.2.309
© 1984 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by AUSTAD, S. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

A Classification of Alternative Reproductive Behaviors and Methods for Field-testing ESS Models1

STEVEN N. AUSTAD2
Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

A number of superficially similar evolutionary phenomena are often lumped together as "alternative reproductive behaviors (ARBs)." Several authors have previously organized the broad array of reproductive alternatives by their relation to ESS theory. Because such an organizing scheme begs the question of how much ESS models can contribute to our understanding of ARBs, I suggest a different scheme—devoid of ESS connotations—which classifies alternatives according to whether they represent genetic differences between individuals (genotypic versus phenotypic alternatives), whether the alternatives can be expected to manifest equal or unequal fitnesses (isogignous versus allogignous alternatives), and whether individuals may switch back and forth between alternatives (reversible versus irreversible alternatives). I point out that plausible selective regimes other than frequency-dependence can maintain genotypic alternatives, and that explanations for the maintenance of phenotypic alternatives usually can be examined only theoretically. I also urge more rigor in the field-testing of ESS models, review criteria which putative ESSs should meet, and suggest a statistical approach for evaluating evidence with regard to equality of fitnesses of reproductive alternatives.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.