Abstract

Males often fight with rival males for access to females. However, some males display nonfighting tactics such as sneaking, satellite behavior, or female mimicking. When these mating tactics comprise a conditional strategy, they are often thought to be explained by resource holding potential (RHP), that is, nonfighting tactics are displayed by less competitive males who are more likely to lose a fight. The alternative mating tactics, however, can also be explained by life‐history theory, which predicts that young males avoid fighting, regardless of their RHP, if it pays off to wait for future reproduction. Here, we test whether the sneaking tactic displayed by young males of the two‐spotted spider mite can be explained by life‐history theory. We tested whether young sneaker males survive longer than young fighter males after a bout of mild or strong competition with old fighter males. We also investigated whether old males have a more protective outer skin—a possible proxy for RHP—by measuring cuticle hardness and elasticity using nanoindentation. We found that young sneaker males survived longer than young fighter males after mild male competition. This difference was not found after strong male competition, which suggests that induction of sneaking tactic is affected by male density. Hardness and elasticity of the skin did not vary with male age. Given that earlier work could also not detect morphometric differences between fighter and sneaker males, we conclude that there is no apparent increase in RHP with age in the mite and age‐dependent male mating tactics in the mite can be explained only by life‐history theory. Because it is likely that fighting incurs a survival cost, age‐dependent alternative mating tactics may be explained by life‐history theory in many species when reproduction of old males is a significant factor in fitness.

Highlights

  • Most males fight with conspecific males for access to females (Andersson, 1994)

  • | 7368 determined by their “resource holding potential” (RHP; Parker, 1974), which can be expressed in terms of body size and energy reserves

  • Alternative male mating tactics have often been considered as a “best of a bad job” strategy which allows the less competitive males to produce at least a few offspring (e.g., Brockmann, 2001)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Most males fight with conspecific males for access to females (Andersson, 1994). At the same time, alternative male mating tactics such as sneaking, satellite behavior, and female mimicking have been described for many species (e.g., Brockmann, 2001; Gross, 1996; Radwan, 2009). We introduced five young males onto a kidney bean leaf disk together with a female in the final molting stage in order to induce mounting behavior and determine sneaking or fighting tactic in the young males as follows.

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.