Sex and Celibacy

Walter, David; Proctor, H. C.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7164-2_5

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 135 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In such cases males might use their antennae, legs, or heads to guide the female on the spermatophore and encourage her to pick it up (see e.g., Thomas and Zeh 1984 ; Tallarovic et al 2000 ; Kozlowski and Aoxiang 2006 ; Walter and Proctor 2013 ). This behavior is referred to as associated sperm transfer ( Proctor 1998 ).…”

Section: Broadening the View Of Reproductive Suppressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Male reproductive suppression: not a social affair

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the animal kingdom there are countless strategies via which males optimize their reproductive success when faced with male–male competition. These male strategies typically fall into two main categories: pre- and post-copulatory competition. Within these 2 categories, a set of behaviors, referred to as reproductive suppression, is known to cause inhibition of reproductive physiology and/or reproductive behavior in an otherwise fertile individual. What becomes evident when considering examples of reproductive suppression is that these strategies conventionally encompass reproductive interference strategies that occur between members of a hierarchical social group. However, mechanisms aimed at impairing a competitor’s reproductive output are also present in non-social animals. Yet, current thinking emphasizes the importance of sociality as the primary driving force of reproductive suppression. Therefore, the question arises as to whether there is an actual difference between reproductive suppression strategies in social animals and equivalent pre-copulatory competition strategies in non-social animals. In this perspective paper we explore a broad taxonomic range of species whose individuals do not repeatedly interact with the same individuals in networks and yet, depress the fitness of rivals. Examples like alteration of male reproductive physiology, female mimicry, rival spermatophore destruction, and cementing the rival’s genital region in non-social animals, highlight that male pre-copulatory reproductive suppression and male pre-copulatory competition overlap. Finally, we highlight that a distinction between male reproductive interference in animals with and without a social hierarchy might obscure important similarities and does not help to elucidate why different proximate mechanisms evolved. We therefore emphasize that male reproductive suppression need not be restricted to social animals.

show abstract