Behavioral consistency and the resolution of sexual conflict over parental investment
Behavioral consistency and the resolution of sexual conflict over parental investment
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/beheco/arq156
复制
发表时间：
2010-11-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Dall, Sasha R. X.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Royle, Nick J.;Schuett, Wiebke;Dall, Sasha R. X.
行为可塑性或灵活性被认为是繁殖成功的关键决定因素，因为自然选择应该有利于那些根据环境、自身状态或其他因素，如伴侣的行为或状况的变化来调整其生殖投资的个体(Roff 2002)。然而，有越来越多的证据表明行为的僵化，即在非人类动物中，在不同背景下，行为的个体差异是一致的(例如，Dall等人。2004年；Sih，Bell和Johnson 2004年；Sih，Bell，Johnson和Ziemba 2004年；Dingemanse和Réale 2005年；Smith和Blumstein 2008年)。最近有人提出，这些一致的个人行为差异可能是有利的，因为它们有助于一致的个人生产力差异(Biro和Stamps 2008)，专业化也有好处(例如，个人受益于根据预期的未来健康回报调整他们的行为；Wolf等人)。2007)，或者存在可预测性的社会效益(例如，Dall等人)。2004年；McNamara等人。2009年)。然而，对于提供昂贵父母照料的生物体来说，灵活性可能比僵化更重要，因为两性之间在投资模式上经常存在冲突(Hartley和Royle，2007)，解决这一问题需要父母双方对另一方的行为做出反应(Parker等人)。2002年)，特别是在双亲照料的物种中。尽管与动物界的其他照料形式相比，双亲照料很少见，但双亲照料在鸟类、一些鱼类家族(如慈鱼)、灵长类动物和一些昆虫亚科(如埋葬甲虫)中很常见(Clutton-Brock 1991)。生育成本意味着合作的父母之间在提供父母投资(PI)方面存在利益冲突(Parker等人。2002年)。因此，个体对这种性冲突的反应应该与其伴侣在双亲物种中的行为密切相关(Wright和Cuthill 1990)，例如，如果雄性减少了他的投资，那么雌性可能会调整她的反应。因此，提供给当前幼崽的PI水平可能会降低，从而降低后代的适合度(Royle等人。2002年)。冲突的结果，以及因此由男性和女性为其后代提供的相对投资，取决于父母使用的供应规则的形式(Parker等人。2002年)。谈判模型基于实时灵活的努力协商，预测个人对其合作伙伴的努力变化的高响应性(例如，McNamara等人)。1999年；约翰斯通和欣德，2006年)。另一方面，封闭式出价模型假设个人应该对合作伙伴的努力变化不敏感(例如，Parker 1985)。在这里，个体从一开始就致力于某种水平的照顾，这种水平独立于伙伴的努力，尽管它可能会因环境资源可获得性或孵化规模的变化而改变(Schwagmeyer和Mock 2003)。因此，尽管在提供昂贵的护理方面存在潜在的冲突，但选择维持双亲照料的过程取决于父母如何应对彼此努力的变化。有相当多的经验证据表明努力的灵活性(谈判)和不灵活性(密封投标)(在Sanz等人中进行了审查)。2000年；Schwagmeyer和Mock 2003；Harrison等人。2009年)。为什么在有双亲照顾的物种中，供应行为的灵活性会有如此大的差异？回答这个问题的关键，以及如何解决性冲突，可能取决于男性父母能力和/或素质(反过来，女性父母能力和/或…)指标的可靠性
Behavioral plasticity or flexibility is expected to be a key determinant of reproductive success because natural selection should favor individuals that adjust their investment in reproduction in response to variability in their environment, their own state, or other factors, such as the behavior or condition of their partner (Roff 2002). There is, however, increasing evidence for inflexibility of behavior, that is, consistent individual differences in behavior across contexts, in nonhuman animals (eg, Dall et al. 2004; Sih, Bell, and Johnson 2004; Sih, Bell, Johnson, and Ziemba 2004; Dingemanse and Réale 2005; Smith and Blumstein 2008). It has recently been suggested that these consistent individual differences in behavior may be advantageous because they contribute to consistent individual differences in productivity (Biro and Stamps 2008), there are benefits to specialization (eg, individuals benefit from adjusting their behavior to expected future fitness returns; Wolf et al. 2007), or there are social benefits of predictability (eg, Dall et al. 2004; McNamara et al. 2009). However, flexibility might be expected to be more important than inflexibility for organisms that provide costly parental care because there are often conflicts over patterns of investment between the sexes (Hartley and Royle 2007), the resolution of which requires each parent to respond to the behavior of the other (Parker et al. 2002), especially in species with biparental care. Although rare compared with other forms of care across the animal kingdom, biparental care is common among birds, some families of fishes (eg, cichlids), primates, and some subfamilies of insects (eg, burying beetles)(Clutton-Brock 1991). Costs of reproduction mean that there are conflicts of interest between collaborating parents over the provision of parental investment (PI)(Parker et al. 2002). Consequently, the response of an individual to such sexual conflict should be closely tied to the behavior of its partner in biparental species (Wright and Cuthill 1990), for example, if the male reduces his investment, then the female may adjust hers in response. As a result, levels of PI provided to the current brood, and therefore offspring fitness, may be reduced (Royle et al. 2002). The outcome of the conflict, and therefore the relative investment provided by males and females to their offspring, is dependent on the form of the provisioning rules used by the parents (Parker et al. 2002). Negotiation models, based on flexible negotiation of effort in real time, predict high responsiveness of individuals to a change in effort by their partners (eg, McNamara et al. 1999; Johnstone and Hinde 2006). Sealed bid models, on the other hand, assume that individuals should be insensitive to changes in effort by their partner (eg, Parker 1985). Here, individuals commit to a certain level of care at the outset that is independent of partner effort, although it may be modified by variation in environmental resource availability or brood size (Schwagmeyer and Mock 2003). The process by which selection maintains biparental care, despite underlying conflicts over the provision of costly care, is therefore determined by how parents respond to changes in each other’s effort. There is considerable empirical evidence for both flexibility of effort (negotiation) and inflexibility (sealed bids)(reviewed in Sanz et al. 2000; Schwagmeyer and Mock 2003; Harrison et al. 2009). Why is there such variation in the flexibility of provisioning behavior in species with biparental care? The key to answering this question, and therefore how sexual conflict is resolved, may depend on the reliability of indicators of male parental ability and/or quality (and, conversely, female parental ability and/or …