Further Mathematical Modelling of Mating Sex Ratios & Male Strategies with Special Relevance to Human Life History
- 345 Downloads
Influential models of male reproductive strategies have often ignored the importance of mate guarding, focusing instead on trade-offs between fitness gained through care for dependants in a pair bond versus fitness from continued competition for additional mates. Here we follow suggestions that mate guarding is a distinct alternative strategy that plays a crucial role, with special relevance to the evolution of our own lineage. Human pair bonding may have evolved in concert with the evolution of our grandmothering life history, which entails a shift to male-biased sex ratios in the fertile ages. As that sex ratio becomes more male biased, payoffs for mate-guarding increase due to partner scarcity. We present an ordinary differential equation model of mutually exclusive strategies (dependant care, multiple mating, and mate guarding), calculate steady-state frequencies and perform bifurcation analysis on parameters of care and guarding efficiency. Mate guarding triumphs over alternate strategies when populations are male biased, and guarding is fully efficient. When guarding does not ensure complete certainty of paternity, and multiple maters are able to gain some paternity from guarders, multiple mating can coexist with guarding. At female-biased sex ratios, multiple mating takes over, unless the benefit of care to the number of surviving offspring produced by the mates of carers is large.
KeywordsMate guarding Paternal care Multiple mating Sex ratio Difference equations Ordinary differential equations
SLL was supported by the Australian Postgraduate Award. MHC and PSK were supported by the Australian Research Council, Discovery Project (DP160101597).
- Blurton Jones NG, Marlowe FW, Hawkes K, O’Connell JF (2000) Paternal investment and hunter-gatherer divorce rates. In: Cronk L, Chagnon N, Irons W (eds) Adaptation and human behavior: an anthropological perspective. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 69–90Google Scholar
- Chapais B (2009) Primeval kinship: how pair-bonding gave birth to human society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Harts AM, Kokko H (2013) Understanding promiscuity: when is seeking additional mates better than guarding an already found one? Evolution 67(10):2838–2848Google Scholar
- Hill KR, Hurtado AM (1996) Ache life history: the ecology and demography of a foraging people. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Howell N (1979) Demography of the Dobe! kung. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Lancaster JB, Lancaster CS (1983) Parental investment: the hominid adaptation. In: Ortner DJ (ed) How humans adapt: a biocultural odyssey. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 33–56Google Scholar
- Schacht R, Bell AV (2016) The evolution of monogamy in response to partner scarcity. Sci Rep 6:32472. doi: 10.1038/srep32472
- Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 136–179Google Scholar
- Tullock G (1974) The social dilemma: the economics of war and revolution. University Publications, BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
- Washburn SL, Lancaster C (1968) The evolution of hunting. In: Lee RB, De Vore I (eds) Man the hunter. Aldine, Chicago, pp 293–303Google Scholar