Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on June 11, 2004
Behavioral Ecology 2004 15(5):872-882; doi:10.1093/beheco/arh100
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intrasexual selection and group spawning in quacking frogs (Crinia georgiana)
School of Animal Biology M092, University of Western Australia, 35 Sterling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
Address correspondence to P. G. Byrne, who is now at the Division of Botany and Zoology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ALT 0200, Australia. E-mail: phillip.byrne{at}anu.edu.au.
In the Australian frog Crinia georgiana, matings frequently involve a single female and multiple males (group spawning). The aim of the present study was to demonstrate a connection between variation in the intensity of intrasexual competition, measured by using male density and operational sex ratio (OSR), and the incidence of group spawning. Over a 3-month breeding period, male density and OSR varied substantially and were significantly influenced by climatic conditions. The frequency of agonistic interactions between males was higher in denser choruses. Fights were typically over the possession of sites used to broadcast advertisement calls and were almost always won by larger males. At higher densities, males allocated significantly less time to calling to attract females and spent more time as nonmoving satellites or roaming through an aggregation (searching). However, large males always called more than did small males. The number of males involved in a spawning correlated positively with variation in both male density and OSR. Observation of group spawnings revealed that they generally arose when a satellite male joined a mating pair after a female chose to mate with a calling male or when a female was seized by a searching male and the pair was joined by other searching males. These findings, coupled with past research documenting costs but no benefits of multiple paternity to females, suggest that competitively inferior males force group spawns.
Key words: forced copulation, frogs, group spawning, sexual conflict.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. A. Dziminski, J. D. Roberts, M. Beveridge, and L. W. Simmons Sperm competitiveness in frogs: slow and steady wins the race Proc R Soc B, November 22, 2009; 276(1675): 3955 - 3961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. W Simmons, A. Denholm, C. Jackson, E. Levy, and E. Madon Male crickets adjust ejaculate quality with both risk and intensity of sperm competition Biol Lett, October 22, 2007; 3(5): 520 - 522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Kokko and D. J Rankin Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems Phil Trans R Soc B, February 28, 2006; 361(1466): 319 - 334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|