|
Title: Sexual Animal Behavior Post by: Kelly185891 on Nov 16, 2010 In their classic paper on mating systems. (Emlen S & Oring L. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-23, 1977), Steve Emlen and Lew Oring suggested that two ecological factors could promote the evolution of monogamy: a high degree of synchrony in reproductive cycling within a population and a highly disoersed distribution of receptive females.
*Try to reconstruct the logic of these predictions and then make counterarguments to the effect the synchronized breeding could facilitate acquistion of multiple mates while a relatively dense population of receptive females might actually promote monogamy. * How the heck do I answer a question like this ??? :'( Title: Re: Sexual Animal Behavior Post by: bio_man on Nov 17, 2010 Emlen and Oring’s argument was that when most females are receptive at the same time, then a male will not have time to go from one female to the next, and so will be constrained to be monogamous. This outcome would be particularly likely if females were highly dispersed because of the time costs of travel between females.
On the other hand, synchronized breeding by females creates a large pool of potential mates for the male that can attract several females to him more or less simultaneously. And if a female became unreceptive immediately or soon after mating because of the restricted period of breeding, then a male that left one female for another would run a relatively low risk of having her copulate with a competitor. And, although it seems at first glance that a dispersed distribution of females would facilitate monogamy, on the other hand, if females are densely packed, then so too would be male competitors, which would raise the costs of leaving one mate for another (only to have her accept sperm from a competitor). Under intense male–male competition, mate guarding could be advantageous, limiting the number of females per male. Bio_man 8) |