Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 4, pp 657–665 | Cite as

Fallow deer polyandry is related to fertilization insurance

  • Elodie F. Briefer
  • Mary E. Farrell
  • Thomas J. Hayden
  • Alan G. McElligott
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Female mate choice Female mating strategy Good genes Offspring quality Sexual selection Ungulates 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Ethical standards

The work described here complies with the current laws of Ireland.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2013_1485_MOESM1_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Table S1 Number of matings by females and males and number of individuals involved in matings for each age class, over the 10 year study (DOC 43 kb)

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher GW, Barrell GK, Peterson AJ (1986) Hormonal changes around oestrus of farmed fallow deer, Dama dama. J Reprod Fert 78:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bang A, Deshpande S, Sumana A, Gadagkar R (2010) Choosing an appropriate index to construct dominance hierarchies in animal societies: a comparison of three indices. Anim Behav 79:631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.
  5. Bebié N, McElligott AG (2006) Female aggression in red deer (Cervus elaphus): does it indicate competition for mates? Mamm Biol 71:347–355Google Scholar
  6. Bergeron P, Réale D, Humphries MM, Garant D (2011) Evidence of multiple paternity and mate selection for inbreeding avoidance in wild eastern chipmunks. J Evol Biol 24:1685–1694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birgersson B (1998) Male-biased maternal expenditure and associated costs in fallow deer. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birgersson B, Ekvall K, Temrin H (1991) Allosuckling in fallow deer, Dama dama. Anim Behav 42:326–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowyer R, Rachlow J, Stewart K, Van Ballenberghe V (2011) Vocalizations by Alaskan moose: female incitation of male aggression. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:2251–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briefer E, Vannoni E, McElligott AG (2010) Quality prevails over identity in the sexually selected vocalisations of an ageing mammal. BMC Biol 8:35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bro-Jørgensen J (2002) Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. P Natl Acad Sci USA 99:9290–9293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bro-Jørgensen J (2007) Reversed sexual conflict in a promiscuous antelope. Curr Biol 17:2157–2161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bro-Jørgensen J (2011) Intra- and intersexual conflicts and cooperation in the evolution of mating strategies: lessons learnt from ungulates. Evol Biol 38:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brooks R, Kemp DJ (2001) Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol Evol 16:308–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Byers JA, Waits L (2006) Good genes sexual selection in nature. P Natl Acad Sci USA 103:16343–16345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Byers JA, Wiseman PA, Jones L, Roffe TJ (2005) A large cost of female mate sampling in pronghorn. Am Nat 166:661–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carling MD, Avsharian Wiseman P, Byers JA (2003) Microsatellite analysis reveals multiple paternity in a population of wild pronghorn antelopes (Antilocapra americana). J Mammal 84:1237–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carranza J, Pérez-González J, Mateos C, Fernández-García JL (2009) Parents’ genetic dissimilarity and offspring sex in a polygynous mammal. Mol Ecol 18:4964–4973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Clutton-Brock TH, McAuliffe K (2009) Female mate choice in mammals. Q Rev Biol 84:3–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE (1979) The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim Behav 27:211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Collet J, Richardson DS, Worley K, Pizzari T (2012) Sexual selection and the differential effect of polyandry. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8641–8645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cornell SJ, Tregenza T (2007) A new theory for the evolution of polyandry as a means of inbreeding avoidance. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2873–2879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Daly M (1978) The cost of mating. Am Nat 112:771–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunn SJ, Clancey E, Waits LP, Byers JA (2012) Genetic evidence of inbreeding avoidance in pronghorn. J Zool 288:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Endo A, Doi T (2002) Multiple copulations and post-copulatory guarding in a free-living population of sika deer (Cervus nippon). Ethology 108:739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Farrell ME (2001) Courtship, multiple mating and reproductive synchrony in female fallow deer (Dama dama). Ph.D. thesis, University College Dublin, Dublin.Google Scholar
  31. Farrell ME, Briefer E, Hayden T, McElligott AG (2011) Assortative mating in fallow deer reduces the strength of sexual selection. PLoS One 6:e18533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Firman RC, Simmons LW (2011) Male house mice evolving with post-copulatory sexual selection sire embryos with increased viability. Ecol Lett 15:42–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fisher DO, Double MC, Blomberg SP, Jennions MD, Cockburn A (2006) Post-mating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 444:89–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibson RM, Jewell PA (1982) Semen quality, female choice and multiple mating in domestic sheep: a test of Trivers’ sexual competence hypothesis. Behaviour 80:9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Hosken DJ, Stockley P (2003) Benefits of polyandry: a life history perspective. Evol Biol 33:173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huchard E, Canale CI, Le Gros C, Perret M, Henry P-Y, Kappeler PM (2012) Convenience polyandry or convenience polygyny? Costly sex under female control in a promiscuous primate. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:1371–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson SL, Gemmell NJ (2012) Are old males still good males and can females tell the difference? Bioessays 34:609–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klemme I, Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2007) Why do female bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus, mate multiply? Anim Behav 73:623–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Komers PE, Birgersson B, Ekvall K (1999) Timing of estrus in fallow deer is adjusted to the age of available mates. Am Nat 153:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Langbein J, Putman R (1992) Reproductive success of female fallow deer in relation to age and condition. In: Brown RD (ed) The biology of deer. Springer, New York, pp 293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lord M (2006) Neonatal and maternal behaviour in fallow deer (Dama dama L). Ph.D. thesis, University College Dublin, DublinGoogle Scholar
  45. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T (1992) Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 335:440–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malo A, Roldan ER, Garde J, Soler A, Vicente J, Gortazar C, Gomendio M (2009) What does testosterone do for red deer males? Proc R Soc Lond B 276:971–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McElligott AG, Hayden TJ (2000) Lifetime mating success, sexual selection and life history of fallow bucks (Dama dama). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McElligott AG, O’Neill KP, Hayden TJ (1999) Cumulative long-term investment in vocalization and mating success of fallow bucks, Dama dama. Anim Behav 57:1159–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McElligott AG, Gammell MP, Harty HC, Paini DR, Murphy DT, Walsh JT, Hayden TJ (2001) Sexual size dimorphism in fallow deer (Dama dama): do larger, heavier males gain greater mating success? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McElligott AG, Altwegg R, Hayden TJ (2002) Age-specific survival and reproductive probabilities: evidence for senescence in male fallow deer (Dama dama). Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1129–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Moore N, Kelly P, Cahill J, Hayden T (1995) Mating strategies and mating success of fallow (Dama dama) bucks in a non-lekking population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pischedda A, Rice WR (2012) Partitioning sexual selection into its mating success and fertilization success components. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109:2049–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Wilson K (2001) Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion. Nature 409:681–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Say L, Naulty F, Hayden TJ (2003) Genetic and behavioural estimates of reproductive skew in male fallow deer. Mol Ecol 12:2793–2800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2012) Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 87:1–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stopher KV, Nussey DH, Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness F, Morris A, Pemberton JM (2011) The red deer rut revisited: female excursions but no evidence females move to mate with preferred males. Behav Ecol 22:808–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Symonds MRE, Moussalli A (2011) A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vannoni E, McElligott AG (2009) Fallow bucks get hoarse: vocal fatigue as a possible signal to conspecifics. Anim Behav 78:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanpé C, Kjellander P, Gaillard JM, Cosson JF, Galan M, Hewison AJM (2009) Multiple paternity occurs with low frequency in the territorial roe deer, Capreolus capreolus. Biol J Linn Soc 97:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wu L (2009) Mixed effects models for complex data. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yasui Y (1998) The “genetic benefits” of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queen Mary University of London, Biological and Experimental Psychology Group, School of Biological and Chemical SciencesLondonUK
  2. 2.Wildlife and Behavioural Ecology Group, Hartpury CollegeUniversity of the West of EnglandGloucesterUK
  3. 3.School of Biology and Environmental ScienceUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  4. 4.Institute of Agricultural SciencesETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations