Back

Density-dependent costs and benefits of male mating success in a wild insect

Niemela, P. T.; Tiso, S.; Dingemanse, N. J.

2019-08-14 evolutionary biology
10.1101/733832 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LISocial environments are important determinant of fitness, particularly when same-sex local densities shape both mating success and survival costs.\nC_LIO_LIWe studied how mating success varied across a range of naturally occurring local male densities in wild field cricket males, Gryllus campestris, monitored by using fully automated RFID-surveillance system. We predicted that mating success as a function of local density follow a concave pattern predicted by the Allee-effect theory. As increasing density should reduce per capita predation and parasitism risk, we predicted that males generally having high mating success in low (versus high) local density live less long. Finally, we predicted that males on average occurred in local densities where their mating success is highest.\nC_LIO_LIMale mating success followed a density-dependent pattern predicted by the Allee-effect theory. Males also differed in the local density where their mating success was highest. This variation explained longevity and total fitness: males with high mating success in low local density lived longer and had higher total mating success. Finally, we found no evidence of males occupying local densities in which their mating success is highest.\nC_LIO_LIOur study suggest that density-dependent plasticity in mating success is under selection: males having high mating success in low density, but low mating success in high density, lived longer and had higher overall mating success. We thus provide novel insights, with unseen detail, about individual differences in density-dependent mating success and, costs and benefits related to variation in mating success in the wild. Finally, our study also highlights that specific statistical approaches are needed to firmly study the costs and benefits associated with the traits that are repeatedly expressed across range of environments.\nC_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.