Literature DB >> 18707439

The evolution of parental care in the context of sexual selection: a critical reassessment of parental investment theory.

Michael J Wade1, Stephen M Shuster.   

Abstract

Males and females are often defined by differences in their energetic investment in gametes. In most sexual species, females produce few large ova, whereas males produce many tiny sperm. This difference in initial parental investment is presumed to exert a fundamental influence on sex differences in mating and parental behavior, resulting in a taxonomic bias toward parental care in females and away from parental care in males. In this article, we reexamine the logic of this argument as well as the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) theory often used to substantiate it. We show that the classic ESS model, which contrasts parental care with offspring desertion, violates the necessary relationship between mean male and female fitness. When the constraint of equal male and female mean fitness is correctly incorporated into the ESS model, its results are congruent with those of evolutionary genetic theory for the evolution of genes with direct and indirect effects. Male parental care evolves whenever half the magnitude of the indirect effect of paternal care on offspring viability exceeds the direct effect of additional mating success gained by desertion. When the converse is true, desertion invades and spreads. In the absence of a genetic correlation between the sexes, the evolution of paternal care is independent of maternal care. Theories based on sex differences in gametic investment make no such specific predictions. We discuss whether inferences about the evolution of sex differences in parental care can hold if the ESS theory on which they are based contains internal contradictions.

Year:  2002        PMID: 18707439     DOI: 10.1086/341520

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Nat        ISSN: 0003-0147            Impact factor:   3.926


  14 in total

1.  Evolution in a genetically heritable social environment.

Authors:  James M Cheverud
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-04-07       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Stability and value of male care for offspring: is it worth only half the trouble?

Authors:  Lutz Fromhage; John M McNamara; Alasdair I Houston
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Adult sex ratios and reproductive strategies: a critical re-examination of sex differences in human and animal societies.

Authors:  Ryan Schacht; Karen L Kramer; Tamás Székely; Peter M Kappeler
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 4.  Not all sex ratios are equal: the Fisher condition, parental care and sexual selection.

Authors:  Michael D Jennions; Lutz Fromhage
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Grandmothering life histories and human pair bonding.

Authors:  James E Coxworth; Peter S Kim; John S McQueen; Kristen Hawkes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Parental investment without kin recognition: Simple conditional rules for parent-offspring behavior.

Authors:  C Athena Aktipis; Eduardo Fernandez-Duque
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Men's reproductive investment decisions : Mating, Parenting, and Self-perceived Mate Value.

Authors:  Coren L Apicella; Frank W Marlowe
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2007-03

8.  Causes and consequences of adult sex ratio imbalance in a historical U.S. population.

Authors:  Ryan Schacht; Ken R Smith
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

9.  The Evolution of Altruistic Preferences: Mothers versus Fathers.

Authors:  Ingela Alger; Donald Cox
Journal:  Rev Econ Househ       Date:  2013-09-01

10.  The origin of parental care in relation to male and female life history.

Authors:  Hope Klug; Michael B Bonsall; Suzanne H Alonzo
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.