Abstract
It is generally accepted that if a female can improve her offspring’s genetics via extra-pair copulations (EPC), it is by copulating with extra-pair males whose phenotypes are more superior or whose genes are more compatible to hers than those of her bonded male. Here, we present a model that puts together uncertainties about the male genetic quality, a postcopulatory sperm bias in favor of the better or the more compatible genes, and costs that females pay by being choosy about extra-pair male quality. The model’s conclusions challenge traditional views of good genes explanations of EPC. When phenotypes give incomplete information about genotypes, a female choosing a phenotypically superior extra-pair male, may nevertheless find herself trading good genes of a bonded male for poor genes of an extra-pair male. Such “unfortunate sperm replacements” can limit the female involvement in EPC even when EPC are otherwise cost-free. The model also shows that even a female bonded to a phenotypically superior male may benefit by EPC, provided that sperm competition is biased toward sperm with more fit or more compatible genes. Furthermore, if choosiness is sufficiently costly, a female may even do best by copulating with a random extra-pair male.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akçay E, Roughgarden J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of the genetic benefits. Evol Ecol Res 9:855–868
Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M (2005) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behaviour in females. Am Nat 165:S26–S37
Ball MA, Parker GA (2003) Sperm competition games: sperm selection by females. J Theor Biol 224:27–42
Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368
Brommer JE, Korsten P, Bouwman KM, Berg ML, Domdeur J (2007) Is extrapair mating random? On the probability distribution of extrapair young in avian broods. Behav Ecol 18:895–904
Brooks R, Kemp DJ (2001) Can older males deliver the good genes? TREE 16:308–313
Dominey WR (1984) Altarnative mating tactics and evolutionarily stable strategies. Am Zool 24:385–396
Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363
Eliassen S, Kokko H (2008) Current analyses do not resolve whether extra-pair paternity is male or female driven. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1795–1804
Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Foerster K, Valcu M, Johnsen A (2006) A spatial genetic structure and effects of relatedness on mate choice in a wild bird population. Mol Ecol 15:4555–4567
Fromhage L, Kokko H, Reid JM (2009) Evolution of mate choice for genome-wide heterzygosity. Evolution 63:684–694
Gowaty PA (1996) Battles of the sexes and origins of monogamy. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds: the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–52
Griffith SC (2007) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: neglected components of direct and indirect selection. Am Nat 169:274–281
Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212
Hansen TF, Price DK (1995) Good genes and old age: do old mates provide superior genes? J Evol Biol 8:759–778
Hasson O, Stone L (2009) Male infertility, female fertility and extrapair copulations. Biol Rev 84:225–244
Hardy OJ (2003) Estimation of pairwise relatedness between individuals and characterization of isolation-by-distance process using dominant genetic markers. Mol Ecol 12:1577–1588
Higginson AD, Reader T (2009) Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc R Soc B 276:1153–1159
Howard DJ (1999) Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30:109–132
Kirkpatrick M (1986) The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. Am Nat 127:222–240
Kokko H (1998) Good genes, old age and lifehistory trade-offs. Evol Ecol 12:739–750
Kokko H (1999) Kuckoldry and the stability of biparental care. Ecol Lett 2:247–255
Kokko H, Heubel K (2008) Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132:209–216
Lehmann L, Keller LF, Kokko H (2007) Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variations. J Theor Biol 244:282–295
Locatello L, Rasotto MB, Evans JP, Pilastro A (2006) Colourful male guppies produce faster and more viable sperm. J Evol Biol 19:1595–1602
Marshall J, McNamara J, Houston A (2010) The state of Darwinian theory. Behav Ecol Soc. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1121-y
Maynard Smith J, Harper DGC (1995) Animal signals: models and terminology. J Theor Biol 177:305–311
Mays HL Jr, Albrecht T, Liu M, Hill GE (2008) Female choice for genetic complementary in birds: a review. Genetica 134:147–158
Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19–38
Penn DJ (2009) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21
Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58
Pitcher TE, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2007) Sexual colouration and sperm traits in guppies. J Fish Biol 70:165–177
Puurtinen M, Ketola T, Kotiaho JS (2005) Genetic compatibility and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 20:157–158
Puurtinen M, Ketola T, Kotiaho JS (2009) The good-genes and compatible genes benefits of female choice. Am Nat 174:741–752
Radwan J (2003) Male age, germline mutations and the benefits of polyandry. Ecol Lett 6:581–586
Reid JM (2007) Secondary sexual ornaments and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice. Proc R Soc B 274:1395–1402
Slagsvold T, Lifjeld J (1997) Incomplete knowledge of male quality may explain variation in extra-pair paternity in birds. Behaviour 134:353–371
Schmoll T, Schurr FM, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Lubjun T (2009) Lifespan, lifetime reproductive performance and the paternity loss of within-pair and extra-pair offspring in the coal tit Periparus ater. Proc Roy Soc B 276:337–345
Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 34:365–396
Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2001) Male parental care and paternity in birds. Curr Ornithol 16:257–298
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Guest Editor J. McNamara
This contribution is part of the Special Issue “Mathematical Models in Ecology and Evolution: Darwin 200” (see Marshall et al. 2010).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hasson, O., Stone, L. Why do females have so few extra-pair offspring?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 513–523 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1104-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1104-z