Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 1984 24(2):333-343; doi:10.1093/icb/24.2.333
© 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 WALTZ, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by WOLF, L. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

By Jove!! Why Do Alternative Mating Tactics Assume So Many Different Forms?1

EDWARD C. WALTZ and LARRY L. WOLF
Department of Biology, Lyman Hall, Syracuse University Syracuse, New York 13210

Tremendous diversity exists in the form of alternative mating tactics (AMTs) employed by males of many species. We develop a general framework in which to view alternatives that vary in (i) their frequency in the population, (ii) their fitness value with respect to the primary tactics, (iii) the extent to which the alternative tactic is site-fixed and (iv) the intrinsic ability of males to change tactics.

The frequency and fitness value of alternatives should be influenced by Resource Holding Potential (RHP), which generally varies with age, size, and perhaps energy reserves. AMTs should be unequal in fitness value when RHP increases at an accelerating rate with age. "Subordinate AMTs" can result when various factors favor males attempting to reproduce before reaching the age with maximum RHP. An asymptotic relationship between age and RHP should result in most males in a population having essentially equal RHP. Several ways exist for males to partition the set of mating opportunities between two or more "equal AMTs."

Transient tactics may occur if (i) resources for females and territorial males differ and do not covary positively in their distribution, or (ii) local areas are so attractive to females that males effectively cannot defend them. We suggest Levins' (1968) "fitness set" analysis as a useful model predicting whether a male should specialize on a single tactic, or partition its effort between the two tactics.


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.