| Literature DB >> 32108140 |
Simona Imperio1, Sonia Lombardi2,3, Annamaria De Marinis4, Francesca Ronchi4, Giacomo Santini2, Stefano Focardi3.
Abstract
Most studies on ungulate reproduction have focused on the covariates of male reproductive success, while there is much less information on female tactics of mate choice. The aim of this work is to fill this gap and to assess condition-dependent variations in female tactics in a lekking fallow deer (Dama dama) population. In particular, we investigated three indirect selection mechanisms: i) aggregation: when females join an already formed female group; ii) copying: when females copy the mate choice of other females and iii) territory choice: when females select a territory where many copulations had previously occurred. Our results show that female fallow deer, which are less experienced (younger) and/or incur higher travel costs (home range far from the lek), adopt indirect forms of mate selection more often than older females or females residing near the lek, respectively. Compared to adults, younger females remained longer in the lek (almost three times) and in male territories, returning to the lek after copulation. However, despite the time spent at the lek, younger females were not able to select the highest-rank males, and relied on territory choice more often than older females. Farther does visited the lek less frequently (farthest females only once) and arrived on average 5 days later than closer females (which performed up to 7 visits), but they were seen more often within female groups (aggregation). We did not find a different amount of copying in younger or in farther females. Our results contribute to advance our understanding of female behaviours in ungulate leks.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32108140 PMCID: PMC7046612 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58681-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1A group of female fallow deer attending the lek of Castelporziano (Italy). Photo by A. De Marinis.
Descriptions of dependent variables.
| Variables | Descriptions | Sampling years | Selection criterion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of copulations before | 2001–2003 | ≥5 obs | |
| Number of copulations after | 2001–2003 | ≥5 obs | |
| Number of visits of female at lek | 2000–2003 | ||
| Date of first arrival at lek (days from | 2000–2003 | ||
| Date of copulation (days from | 2001–2003 | ||
| Number of visits at lek for females after copulation | 2001–2003 | ||
| Number of territories visited by a female | 2002–2003 | ≥3 min | |
| Total time (min) spent in display territories | 2002–2003 | ≥3 min | |
| Total time (min) spent with bucks | 2002–2003 | ≥1 min | |
| Probability to be observed together with other females | 2001–2003 | ≥2 obs | |
| Binary variable: 0 = alone, 1 = in group of females | 2001–2003 | 1st obs | |
| Number of copulations of the buck, with which the female mated, from the dawn of the same day until the mating with the female | 2001–2003 | ||
| Number of copulations of the buck, with which the female mated, from the beginning of rut until the mating with the female | 2001–2003 | ||
| Number of copulations observed in the territory, where the female mated, from dawn of the same day until the mating with the female | 2001–2003 | ||
| Number of copulations observed in the territory, where the female mated, from the beginning of rut until the mating with the female | 2001–2003 | ||
| Total copulatory success of the buck with which the female mated | 2001–2003 |
We report the years used for computing the different variables and the criterion used for inclusion in the analysis. Obs = observations; Ejac = number of copulations ending with ejaculation; Ejac + IntC = total number of courtships; Peak = peak date.
Total number of identified bucks (Tot), total number of reproductive bucks (Rep), number of copulations ending with ejaculation (Ejac), total number of courtships (Ejac + IntC), Peak date (October), standard deviation (SD) of male copulatory success during the pre-Peak and post-Peak phases, and results of equality of variances test (Fisher’s test) (prediction H1g).
| Year | Tot | Rep | SD pre- | SD post- | F | High | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | — | — | 116 | 148 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2001 | 133 | 54 | 244 | 319 | 11 | 2.88 | 3.84 | 1.78 | 0.007 | 49.5 |
| 2002 | 114 | 42 | 197 | 243 | 13 | 3.54 | 4.94 | 1.94 | 0.006 | 62.6 |
| 2003 | 172 | 77 | 445 | 638 | 15 | 2.28 | 4.84 | 4.51 | <0.001 | 50.2 |
The test was not performed in 2000 since bucks were not individually identified. Last column reports the % of copulations performed by the 10 most successful bucks (High).
Figure 2Paths of two radio-collared females (green: D11F, Dist = 7.5 km; orange: D03F, Dist = 2.5 km), performing one and three visits to the lek, respectively, during the breeding season in 2000 in the Castelporziano Preserve, Italy. Light orange and green areas represent the spring-summer home ranges of the two females, while the blue ellipse encloses the lek area (see Fig. S1). Map produced with ArcGIS 10.2.2. Background image is the Carta Tecnica Regionale 1:10000 (Lazio Region, 1990–1991), downloaded from http://dati.lazio.it/catalog/it/dataset/carta-tecnica-regionale-1991 under a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.it).
Results of Generalized Linear Mixed Models performed to characterise behaviour at the lek and mate choice of female fallow deer in relation to age and distance between home range and lek.
| Model | Description | Sample | Hp | Type | N | Distance | Age | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Radiocollared does | H1a,c | Poisson | 27 | −0.65 ± 0.15 | < 0.001 | — | — | |
| M2 | H1a,d | Normal | 26 | 3.78 ± 1.10 | 0.003 | — | — | ||
| M3 | All marked does | H1a,c | Poisson | 149 | −0.29 ± 0.10 | 0.006 | −0.17 ± 0.06 | 0.008 | |
| M4 | H1a,d | Normal | 149 | 2.31 ± 1.00 | 0.03 | 0.25 ± 0.57 | NS | ||
| M5 | H1b | Poisson | 55 | −0.15 ± 0.13 | NS | −0.36 ± 0.07 | < 0.001 | ||
| M6 | Normal | 55 | −34.2 ± 36.3 | NS | −44.3 ± 19.7 | 0.04 | |||
| M7 | Normal | 59 | −12.55 ± 15.82 | NS | −20.3 ± 8.63 | 0.03 | |||
| M8 | All marked does, copulation observed | H1f | Normal | 29 | −0.73 ± 1.21 | NS | −4.63 ± 0.86 | 0.03 | |
| M9 | H1h | Poisson | 29 | 0.071 ± 0.30 | NS | −0.97 ± 0.30 | 0.045 | ||
| M10 | All marked does | H2a | Logit | 111 | 0.23 ± 0.13 | NS | −0.01 ± 0.17 | NS | |
| M11 | Binary | 111 | 0.24 ± 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.76 ± 0.53 | NS | |||
| M12 | All marked does, copulation observed | H2b | Poisson | 32 | −0.46 ± 0.36 | NS | 0.33 ± 0.39 | NS | |
| M13 | Poisson | 32 | −0.34 ± 0.41 | NS | 0.47 ± 0.31 | NS | |||
| M14 | All marked does, copulation observed | H2c | Poisson | 33 | −0.14 ± 0.48 | NS | −0.61 ± 0.44 | NS | |
| M15 | Poisson | 33 | 0.13 ± 0.35 | NS | −1.32 ± 0.21 | < 0.001 | |||
| M16 | All marked does, copulation observed | H3 | Poisson | 32 | −0.19 ± 0.26 | NS | 0.84 ± 0.20 | 0.005 | |
Codes for hypotheses/predictions follow the list given in the Introduction.
(1) We used Dist and not log(Dist) since this model was considered more parsimonious (ΔAICc = 1.82).
Figure 3Boxplots for each age class of females mating in the lek of (a) the number of matings that occurred previously in the same territory from the beginning of the breeding season, and (b) the total copulatory success of the buck with which the female mated (bold horizontal line indicates the median, box indicates interquartile range, whiskers indicate ±1.5 × interquartile range, and outliers are shown as circles). Conditional plots (i.e., holding variable “log(Dist)” as constant) of Poisson GLMMs of the same relationships: (c) M15, (d) M16 (Table 3).