Fallow deer polyandry is related to fertilization insurance
- 584 Downloads
Polyandry is widespread, but its adaptive significance is not fully understood. The hypotheses used to explain its persistence have rarely been tested in the wild and particularly for large, long-lived mammals. We investigated polyandry in fallow deer, using female mating and reproduction data gathered over 10 years. Females of this species produce a single offspring (monotocous) and can live to 23 years old. Overall, polyandry was evident in 12 % of females and the long-term, consistent proportion of polyandrous females observed, suggests that monandry and polyandry represent alternative mating strategies. Females were more likely to be polyandrous when their first mate had previously achieved high numbers of matings during the rut or was relatively old. However, polyandry was not related to the following factors: female age, the stage of the rut, the dominance ranks of mates, or the number of daily matings achieved by males. Polyandrous and monandrous multiple-mating females were not more likely than single-mating females to be observed with an offspring during the following year, and there were no significant differences in offspring size between these females. These results provide support for a fertility insurance hypothesis, with females remating if fertilization from the first mating was uncertain due to possible sperm depletion. The potential for different female mating strategies among large, polygynous mammals has generally been overlooked. Our findings highlight the complexity of female reproductive strategies and the possible trade-offs between fertilization success, preferences for high-quality males, and potential costs of polyandry, particularly for monotocous species.
KeywordsFemale mate choice Female mating strategy Good genes Offspring quality Sexual selection Ungulates
We thank P. Cullen, D. Doran, H. Harty, N. Moore, F. Naulty, K. Nevin, C. Reynolds, N. Reynolds, K. Tipton, and many other volunteers. Thanks to S. Ciuti, M. Festa-Bianchet, A. Malo, B. Pitcher, K. Ruckstuhl, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We thank the staff of Phoenix Park and University College Dublin for their assistance. This work was supported by the Office of Public Works, the Department of Education and Enterprise Ireland to MEF during some of the data collection, and the Swiss National Science Foundation to EFB.
The work described here complies with the current laws of Ireland.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 2.15.0. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
- Bebié N, McElligott AG (2006) Female aggression in red deer (Cervus elaphus): does it indicate competition for mates? Mamm Biol 71:347–355Google Scholar
- Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ciuti S, Apollonio, M (2011) Do antlers honestly advertise the phenotypic quality of fallow buck (Dama dama) in a lekking population? Ethology 117:133–144Google Scholar
- Farrell ME (2001) Courtship, multiple mating and reproductive synchrony in female fallow deer (Dama dama). Ph.D. thesis, University College Dublin, Dublin.Google Scholar
- Harty HC (2002) Mate selection by females: sampling tactics and mate choice by female fallow deer (Dama dama L.). Ph.D. thesis, University College Dublin, DublinGoogle Scholar
- Lord M (2006) Neonatal and maternal behaviour in fallow deer (Dama dama L). Ph.D. thesis, University College Dublin, DublinGoogle Scholar
- McElligott AG, Naulty F, Clarke W, Hayden TJ (2003) The somatic cost of reproduction: what determines reproductive effort in prime-aged fallow bucks? Evol Ecol Res 5:1239–1250Google Scholar