Article

Paternity and the evolution of male parental care

Biology Dept., University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, U.S.A.
Journal of Theoretical Biology (Impact Factor: 2.35). 03/1980; DOI:10.1016/0022-5193(80)90182-4

ABSTRACT It is generally believed that level of paternity (the proportion of zygotes in a brood that were fertilized by the male providing parental care) has an important role in the evolution of parental care. We have used population genetics models to investigate this role. The models indicate that only in mating systems where a parental male “sacrifices” promiscous matings can paternity influence the evolution of male parental care. This is because level of paternity can reflect the number of opportunities for these promiscuous fertilizations. For example, high paternity can mean few opportunities and therefore a low cost for paternal care.Certain behaviors may preadapt a species for the evolution of male parental care because they decrease the costs of providing care. For example, in fish species where male care has evolved from spawning territories, the very establishment of territories may have precluded males from gaining promiscuous matings, thereby eliminating the promiscuity costs and facilitating the evolution of care. Without a promiscuity cost, level of paternity will not have influenced the evolution of male care in fishes.Because paternity has limited influence in the evolution of male care, differences in reliability of parentage between males and females are unlikely to explain the prevalence of female care. Our analysis suggests that paternity differences between species cannot serve as a general explanation for the observed patterns of parental care behavior.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
116 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The factors promoting the evolution of parental care strategies have been extensively studied in experiment and theory. However, most attempts to examine parental care in an evolutionary context have evaluated broad taxonomic categories. The explosive and recent diversifications of East African cichlid fishes offer exceptional opportunities to study the evolution of various life history traits based on species-level phylogenies. The Xenotilapia lineage within the endemic Lake Tanganyika cichlid tribe Ectodini comprises species that display either biparental or maternal only brood care and hence offers a unique opportunity to study the evolution of distinct parental care strategies in a phylogenetic framework. In order to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships among 16 species of this lineage we scored 2,478 Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms (AFLPs) across the genome. We find that the Ectodini genus Enantiopus is embedded within the genus Xenotilapia and that during 2.5 to 3 million years of evolution within the Xenotilapia clade there have been 3-5 transitions from maternal only to biparental care. While most previous models suggest that uniparental care (maternal or paternal) arose from biparental care, we conclude from our species-level analysis that the evolution of parental care strategies is not only remarkably fast, but much more labile than previously expected.
    PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(2):e31236. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In socially monogamous species with bi-parental care, males suffer reduced reproductive success if their mate engages in extra-pair copulations (EPCs). One might therefore expect that males should refuse to care for a brood if they can detect that an EPC has occurred. Here, we use a game-theory model to study male brood care in the face of EPCs in a cooperatively breeding species in which offspring help to raise their (half-) siblings in their parents' next breeding attempt. We show that under certain conditions males are selected to care even for broods completely unrelated to themselves. This counterintuitive result arises through a form of pseudo-reciprocity, whereby surviving extra-pair offspring, when helping to rear their younger half-siblings, can more than compensate for the cost incurred by the male that raised them. We argue that similar effects may not be limited to cooperative breeders, but may arise in various contexts in which cooperation between (half-) siblings occurs.
    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 03/2012; 279(1739):2877-82. · 5.68 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In polygynous species, males appear to gain additional offspring by pairing with multiple females simultaneously. However, this may not be true if some females copulate outside of the social pair bond. Polygynous males could experience lower paternity because of trade-offs among gaining multiple social mates, guarding fertility with these mates, and pursuing extra-pair matings. Alternatively, polygynous males could simultaneously gain extra social mates and have high paternity, either because of female preferences or because of male competitive attributes. We tested four predictions stemming from these hypotheses in a facultatively polygynous songbird, the dickcissel (Spiza americana). Unlike most previous studies, we found that males with higher social mating success (harem size) also tended to have higher within-pair paternity and that the number of extra-pair young a male sired increased significantly with his social mating success. Females that paired with mated males were not more likely to produce extra-pair young. In contrast, extra-pair paternity was significantly lower in the nests of females whose nesting activity overlapped that of another female on the same territory. This pattern of mating was robust to differences in breeding density. Indeed, breeding density had no effect on either extra-pair mating or on the association between polygyny and paternity. Finally, nest survival increased with harem size. This result, combined with the positive association between polygyny and paternity, contributed to significantly higher realized reproductive success by polygynous male dickcissels.
    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 01/2013; 67(2). · 2.75 Impact Factor