Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Male–Male Strategies

  • Martin ReichardEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_108-1

Synonyms

Definition

Direct or indirect competitive interactions over access to females, their gametes or resources to attract females.

Introduction

Male–male competition is, along with female choice, one of two main mechanisms of sexual selection (Darwin 1871; Andersson 1994). However, male–male competition has received much less theoretical end empirical interest than female mate choice, perhaps because it is conceptually more straightforward and easier to comprehend (Parker 2014). Competition among males that increases their fitness (reproductive success) is performed to increase an individual’s access to females or their eggs. It is manifested before copulation (precopulatory male–male competition), between copulation and fertilization (postcopulatory male–male competition), or after fertilization. While it has long been believed that male–male competition and female choice are mutually reinforcing, research in recent decades...

Keywords

Female Choice Dominant Male Territorial Male Male Competition Black Grouse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Able, D. J. (1999). Scramble competition selects for greater tailfin size in male red-spotted newts (Amphibia: Salamandridae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46(6), 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock, J. (1994). Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: The mate-guarding hypothesis. Annual Review of Entomology, 39, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baxter, C. M., Barnett, R., & Dukas, R. (2015). Aggression, mate guarding and fitness in male fruit flies. Animal Behaviour, 109, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund, A., Bisazza, A., & Pilastro, A. (1996). Armaments and ornaments: An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 58(4), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blagosklonny, M. V. (2008). Aging: ROS or TOR. Cell Cycle, 7(21), 3344–3354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Candolin, U. (2000). Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 267(1460), 2425–2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Candolin, U., & Tukiainen, I. (2015). The sexual selection paradigm: have we overlooked other mechanisms in the evolution of male ornaments? Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 282(1816), 20151987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DuVal, E. H., & Kempenaers, B. (2008). Sexual selection in a lekking bird: The relative opportunity for selection by female choice and male competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 275(1646), 1995–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hämäläinen, A., Alatalo, R. V., Lebigre, C., Siitari, H., & Soulsbury, C. D. (2012). Fighting behaviour as a correlate of male mating success in black grouse Tetrao tetrix. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66(12), 1577–1586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingleby, F. C. (2015). Insect cuticular hydrocarbons as dynamic traits in sexual communication. Insects, 6(3), 732–742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Kojima, W., Sugiura, S., Makihara, H., Ishikawa, Y., & Takanashi, T. (2014). Rhinoceros beetles suffer male-biased predation by mammalian and avian predators. Zoological Science, 31(3), 109–115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Küpper, C., Stocks, M., Risse, J. E., dos Remedios, N., Farrell, L. L., McRae, S. B., & Kitaysky, A. S. (2016). A supergene determines highly divergent male reproductive morphs in the ruff. Nature Genetics, 48, 79–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lane, S. M., Dickinson, A. W., Tregenza, T., & House, C. M. (2016). Sexual selection on male cuticular hydrocarbons via male-male competition and female choice. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12875.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Lemaître, J. F., Gaillard, J. M., Pemberton, J. M., Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Nussey, D. H. (2014). Early life expenditure in sexual competition is associated with increased reproductive senescence in male red deer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 281(1792), 20140792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCullough, E. L. (2014). Mechanical limits to maximum weapon size in a giant rhinoceros beetle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 281(1786), 20140696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCullough, E. L., & Simmons, L. W. (2016). Selection on male physical performance during male–male competition and female choice. Behavioral Ecology. doi:10.1093/beheco/arw033.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, A. J., & Moore, P. J. (1999). Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266(1420), 711–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neff, B. D. (2003). Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature, 422(6933), 716–719.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Neff, B. D., & Gross, M. R. (2001). Dynamic adjustment of parental care in response to perceived paternity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268(1476), 1559–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parker, G. A. (2014). The sexual cascade and the rise of pre-ejaculatory (Darwinian) sexual selection, sex roles, and sexual conflict. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 6(10), a017509.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Passos, C., Tassino, B., Rosenthal, G. G., & Reichard, M. (2015). Reproductive behavior and sexual selection in annual fishes. In N. Berios et al. (Eds.), Annual fishes: Life history strategy, diversity, and evolution. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  24. Polačik, M., & Reichard, M. (2009). Indirect fitness benefits are not related to male dominance in a killifish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63(10), 1427–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reby, D., & McComb, K. (2003). Anatomical constraints generate honesty: Acoustic cues to age and weight in the roars of red deer stags. Animal Behaviour, 65(3), 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reichard, M., Smith, C., & Jordan, W. C. (2004). Genetic evidence reveals density-dependent mediated success of alternative mating behaviours in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Molecular Ecology, 13(6), 1569–1578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Reichard, M., Bryja, J., Ondračková, M., Dávidová, M., Kaniewska, P., & Smith, C. (2005). Sexual selection for male dominance reduces opportunities for female mate choice in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Molecular Ecology, 14(5), 1533–1542.Google Scholar
  28. Reichard, M., Le Comber, S. C., & Smith, C. (2007). Sneaking from a female perspective. Animal Behaviour, 74(4), 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, C., & Reichard, M. (2005). Females solicit sneakers to improve fertilisation success in the bitterling fish (Rhodeus sericeus). Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 272(1573), 1683–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wootton, R. J., & Smith, C. (2015). Reproductive biology of teleost fishes. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Zuk, M., & Kolluru, G. R. (1998). Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Quarterly Review of Biology, 73, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrahaCzech Republic