Do female Nicrophorus vespilloides reduce direct costs by choosing males that mate less frequently?

Abstract

Sexual conflict occurs when selection to maximize fitness in one sex does so at the expense of the other sex. In the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides, repeated mating provides assurance of paternity at a direct cost to female reproductive productivity. To reduce this cost, females could choose males with low repeated mating rates or smaller, servile males. We tested this by offering females a dichotomous choice between males from lines selected for high or low mating rate. Each female was then allocated her preferred or non-preferred male to breed. Females showed no preference for males based on whether they came from lines selected for high or low mating rates. Pairs containing males from high mating rate lines copulated more often than those with low line males but there was a negative relationship between female size and number of times she mated with a non-preferred male. When females bred with their preferred male the number of offspring reared increased with female size but there was no such increase when breeding with non-preferred males. Females thus benefited from being choosy, but this was not directly attributable to avoidance of costly male repeated mating.

The effect of individual state on the strength of mate choice in females and males

“…This resulted in 1230 promising studies, which were downloaded and read in order to test against my inclusion criteria. For this study, I successfully extracted data from 108 studies: 82 studies provided data for females ( Archard et al, 2006 ; Atwell & Wagner, 2014 ; Atwell & Wagner, 2015 ; Auld et al, 2016 ; Bakker et al, 1999 ; Bastien et al, 2018 ; Bolund et al, 2010a ; Bolund et al, 2010b ; Borg et al, 2006 ; Brandt et al, 2005 ; Buchholz, 2004 ; Burley & Foster, 2006 ; Burley & Moran, 1979 ; Carrière & McNeil, 1990 ; Chen et al, 2018 ; Choudhury & Black, 1993 ; Churchill et al, 2019 ; Cordoba-Aguilar et al, 2003 ; Dakin & Montgomerie, 2014 ; Farrell et al, 2015 ; Fisher & Rosenthal, 2006 ; Gray, 1999 ; Griggio & Hoi, 2010 ; Guevara-Fiore et al, 2010 ; Hamilton & Poulin, 1999 ; Havens et al, 2011 ; Head et al, 2017 ; Hernandez-Jimenez & Rios-Cardenas, 2017 ; Honarmand et al, 2015 ; Hopwood et al, 2016 ; Hunt et al, 2005 ; Iglesias-Carrasco et al, 2017 ; Jennions et al, 1995 ; Joyce et al, 2009 ; Judge et al, 2014 ; Klein et al, 2012 ; Kodric-Brown & Nicoletto, 2001 ; Krishna & Hegde, 2003 ; Lerch et al, 2011 ; Ligout et al, 2012 ; López, 1999 ; Luck & Joly, 2005 ; Lynch et al, 2005 ; Lyons et al, 2014 ; Magallon-Gayon et al, 2011 ; Mair & Blackwell, 1998 ; Maksimowich & Mathis, 2001 ; Manrique & Lazzari, 1994 ; Mazz...…”