Ecological Research · 2008 · 16 citations · 42 references
Life SciencesBiologyEntomologyInsect EcologyPopulation BiologyPopulation EcologyInsect Life History EcologyInsect Population DiversityInsect Population DynamicsMate ChoiceReproductive EcologySpatial Population EcologyAdult Population Density EstimationBeetle Population BiologyBeetle Reproductive BiologyPopulation Growth DifferencesTemporal Population ChangeTemporal Population Dynamics
Abstract Increased resource availability should favor higher animal density. It may also affect sex ratio, the male condition, and mating competition over access to females, although the direction of these variables is not straightforward to predict. Using a non‐experimental approach, we carried out preliminary research using the territorial American rubyspot ( Hetaerina americana ) by comparing two spatially separated populations and the same population in two different seasons (each comparison with varying population densities). We first compared the sex ratio by counting males (using two categories, territorial and non‐territorial) and females; relative foraging time (as an indicator of how much feeding resources each site provides); wing spot size (a sexual ornament), body size and immune melanization response (these two variables were used to assess male condition); and fighting time and contest number (to assess competition). For the seasonal comparison we used a third population in which we only compared male spot size and two indicators of condition and immune response, phenoloxidase (PO) and nitric oxide (NO) activity. The high‐density population had higher values of non‐territorial males (but similar sex ratio), relative foraging time, contest time and number, wing spot (but similar body size) and melanization response than the low‐density population. According to season, at high density, males had higher values of wing spots, PO, and NO. Our results suggest that in a population where animals have more dietary resources, males reach a better condition despite the competition being more intense.
42
Manning Feinleib, Jerrold H. Zar · Journal of the American Statistical Association · 1975 · 12.8K citations
Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Amotz Zahavi · Journal of Theoretical Biology · 1975 · 5.3K citations
Dragonflies: behavior and ecology of Odonata
Choice Reviews Online · 2000 · 768 citations
Life Sciences, Ecology, Zoology +10
THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES II. THE “HANDICAP” PRINCIPLE
Yoh Iwasa, Andrew Pomiankowski, Sean Nee · Evolution · 1991 · 706 citations · Full text