TY - JOUR T1 - Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus JF - Evolution Y1 - 2000 A1 - Hunt, J. A1 - Simmons, L. W. SP - 936 EP - 941 KW - Animalia- KW - Animals- KW - Arthropoda- KW - Arthropods- KW - Behavior- KW - body-size KW - brood-mass KW - Coleoptera-: Insecta- KW - Evolution-and-Adaptation KW - horn-: size- KW - Insects- KW - Invertebrata- KW - Invertebrates- KW - male- KW - male-p KW - Onthophagus-taurus [dung-beetle] (Coleoptera-): female- AB - Parents often have important influences on the development of traits in their offspring. One mechanism by which parents are able to influence offspring phenotype is through the level of care they provide. In onthophagine dung beetles, parents typically provision their offspring by packing dung fragments into a brood mass. Onthophagus taurus males can be separated into two discrete morphs: Large, "major" males have head horns, whereas "minor" males are hornless. Here we show that a switch in parental provisioning strategies adopted by males coincides with the switch in male morphology. Male provisioning results in the production of heavier brood masses than females will produce alone. However, unlike females in which the level of provisioning increases with body size in a continuous manner, the level of provisioning provided by males represents an "all-or-none" tactic with all major males providing a fixed level of provisioning irrespective of their body size. Offspring size is determined largely by the quantity of dung provided to the developing larvae so that paternal and maternal provisioning affects the body size and horn size of offspring produced. The levels of provisioning by individual parents are significantly repeatable, suggesting paternal and maternal effects as candidate indirect genetic effects in the evolution of horn size in the genus Onthophagus. VL - 54 N1 - Using Smart Source ParsingArticleEnglish ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Behavioural dynamics of biparental care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus JF - Animal Behaviour Y1 - 2002 A1 - Hunt, J. A1 - Simmons, L. W. SP - 65 EP - 75 KW - fluctuating asymmetry KW - male parental care KW - male-removal KW - orange-tufted KW - paternal investment KW - prisoners-dilemma game KW - red-winged blackbirds KW - reproductive KW - sexual conflict KW - success KW - sunbird KW - tree swallows AB - In the dimorphic dung beetle Onthophagus taurus major males provide assistance during offspring provisioning. We examined the behavioural dynamics of biparental care to quantify directly how males and females allocate time to parental and nonparental behaviours and to determine whether parents adjust their level of investment relative to their partner's contribution. Females allocated more of their time budget to parental behaviours than males. The proportion of time females allocated to parental behaviours increased after oviposition while that of a male decreased. Male paternity assurance behaviours were negatively associated with male and female parental behaviours. Theoretical models predict that the investment provided by the members of a cooperative pair should be negatively correlated and that any shortfall of one parent should be partially compensated for by the other. In-the absence of a male, unassisted females allocated more time to parental care, and performed more parental behaviours. However, compensation was incomplete as unassisted females performed fewer parental behaviours than pairs, resulting in significantly lighter brood masses (the egg and its associated dung supply). Males performed more parental behaviours when paired with small females, and small females more than large females. Contrary to prediction, the investments provided by males and females in a cooperative pair were positively correlated. Males coordinated their parental behaviours with the females rather than acting independently. Since parental behaviours were directly related to the weight of brood masses, the observed parental interactions will have important fitness consequences in this species., (C) 2002 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. VL - 64 UR - ://000178657200008 N1 - Times Cited: 0Cited Reference Count: 91Cited References: AGRAWAL AF, 2001, SCIENCE, V292, P1710 ALATALO RV, 1982, ANIM BEHAV, V30, P585 ALATALO RV, 1988, ORNIS SCAND, V19, P31 AXELROD R, 1988, SCIENCE, V242, P1385 AXELROD R, 1981, SCIENCE, V211, P1390 BART J, 1989, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V24, P109 BEDARD J, 1983, CAN J ZOOL, V61, P2836 BOYD R, 1992, COALITIONS ALLIANCES, P473 BOYD R, 1989, J THEOR BIOL, V136, P47 BOYD R, 1987, NATURE, V327, P58 CHASE ID, 1980, AM NAT, V115, P827 CLUTTONBROCK TH, 1991, EVOLUTION PARENTAL C COOK D, 1988, AUST J ZOOL, V36, P521 COOK D, 1987, AUST J ZOOL, V35, P123 COTTON PA, 1996, BEHAV ECOL, V7, P178 DAVIES NB, 1985, ANIM BEHAV, V33, P628 DRENT RH, 1980, ARDEA, V68, P225 DUNN PO, 1989, AUK, V106, P635 DUNN PO, 1992, BEHAV ECOL, V3, P291 EMLEN DJ, 1996, EVOLUTION, V50, P1219 FREEMANGALLANT CR, 1998, BEHAV ECOL, V9, P486 GODFRAY HCJ, 1991, NATURE, V352, P328 GOLDSTEIN H, 1988, ARDEA, V76, P169 GREENLAW JS, 1985, ANIM BEHAV, V33, P373 HALFFTER G, 1982, NESTING BEHAV DUNG B HEMBORG C, 1999, J ANIM ECOL, V68, P429 HEMBORG C, 1998, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V265, P2003 HIRSHLEIFER J, 1988, J CONFLICT RESOLUT, V32, P367 HOLSTEIN V, 1942, DUEHOGEN HOUSTON AI, 1985, BEHAV ECOLOGY ECOLOG, P471 HUNT J, 1998, BEHAV ECOL, V9, P465 HUNT J, 1998, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V42, P447 HUNT J, 1997, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V41, P109 HUNT J, 2000, EVOLUTION, V54, P936 HUNT J, IN PRESS J EVOLUTION HUNT J, 2001, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V268, P2409 KEMP AC, 1988, BIRDS N AM, V13, P375 LAZARUS J, 1990, ANIM BEHAV, V39, P672 LEE JM, 1982, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V11, P38 LEFFELAAR D, 1986, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V18, P199 LEIMAR O, 1997, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V264, P1209 LEONARD M, 1996, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V38, P341 LOZANO GA, 1996, ANIM BEHAV 2, V51, P265 LYON BE, 1987, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V20, P377 MARKMAN S, 1995, ANIM BEHAV, V50, P655 MARKMAN S, 1996, ANIM BEHAV 3, V52, P437 MARTIN K, 1987, ANIM BEHAV, V35, P369 MAY RM, 1987, NATURE, V327, P15 MEEK SB, 1991, ANIM BEHAV, V42, P813 MOCZEK AP, 1999, BEHAV ECOL, V10, P641 MOLLER AP, 1991, ANIM BEHAV, V42, P261 MOLLER AP, 2000, BEHAV ECOL, V11, P161 MROWKA W, 1982, ANIM BEHAV, V30, P295 MULDAL AM, 1986, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V19, P105 MUMME RL, 1985, BEHAVIOUR, V95, P290 NOWAK M, 1990, J THEOR BIOL, V142, P237 NOWAK MA, 1992, NATURE, V359, P826 OTTOSSON U, 1997, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V41, P381 PRICE K, 1995, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V37, P201 QUINN JS, 1990, AUK, V274, P260 RIDLEY M, 1978, ANIM BEHAV, V26, P904 SAINO N, 1995, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V36, P151 SASVARI L, 1990, ORNIS SCAND, V21, P287 SHERRATT TN, 1998, J THEOR BIOL, V193, P167 SLAGSVOLD T, 1989, AM NAT, V134, P239 SLAGSVOLD T, 1997, AUK, V114, P593 SLAGSVOLD T, 1990, ECOLOGY, V71, P1258 SLAGSVOLD T, 1994, NATURE, V370, P136 SMITH HG, 1988, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V22, P447 SMITH JM, 1982, EVOLUTION THEORY GAM SMITH JNM, 1982, AUK, V99, P555 SOWIG P, 1996, ECOL ENTOMOL, V21, P81 SVENSSON E, 1997, BEHAV ECOL, V8, P92 TIMM AM, 1975, Z TIERPSYCHOL, V39, P8 TRIVERS RL, 1971, Q REV BIOL, V46, P35 TRIVERS RL, 1972, SEXUAL SELECTION DES, P136 WEATHERHEAD PJ, 1979, AUK, V96, P391 WESTNEAT DF, 1996, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V11, P87 WHILLANS KV, 1990, ANIM BEHAV, V39, P869 WHITTINGHAM LA, 1993, AUK, V110, P240 WILLIAMS GC, 1966, AM NAT, V100, P687 WINKLER DW, 1987, AM NAT, V130, P526 WOLF L, 1990, ANIM BEHAV, V39, P125 WOLF L, 1988, ANIM BEHAV, V36, P1601 WRIGHT J, 1990, ANIM BEHAV, V40, P462 WRIGHT J, 1999, ANIM BEHAV 2, V58, P345 WRIGHT J, 1990, BEHAV ECOL, V1, P116 WRIGHT J, 1989, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V25, P171 WRIGHT J, 1998, J AVIAN BIOL, V29, P105 ZAR JH, 1985, BIOSTATISTICAL ANAL ZEH DW, 1985, AM ZOOL, V25, P785EnglishArticle1605CEANIM BEHAV ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A cost of maternal care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus? JF - Journal of Evolutionary Biology Y1 - 2002 A1 - Hunt, J. A1 - Simmons, L. W. A1 - Kotiaho, J. S. SP - 57 EP - 64 KW - BREEDING BLUE TITS KW - BROOD-SIZE KW - CLUTCH-SIZE KW - drosophila-melanogaster KW - fluctuating asymmetry KW - LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION KW - life-history trade-off KW - Onthophagus taurus KW - PARENTAL KW - Parental care KW - reproductive cost KW - reproductive effort KW - SURVIVAL AB - Parental care theory assumes that investment in current offspring will trade against future investment. A number of field studies on birds have used clutch size manipulations to demonstrate a survival cost to chick rearing. However, such studies do not account for costs accrued during earlier stages of reproduction because not all aspects of reproductive effort are manipulated by varying the number of nestlings. in this study, we investigate the effect of reproductive effort on female survival in the dung beetle, Onthophagus taurus. By experimentally manipulating mating status and dung availability, we demonstrate that virgin females survive longer than mated females and that the survival of mated females was negatively associated with the number of brood masses produced. Using a novel manipulation of the mating system, we separated the effects of egg production and maternal care on female survival. Previously, we have shown that females provisioning with the assistance of a major male provide relatively less care than unassisted females. However, paternal assistance did not alter the number of brood masses produced and hence the amount of reproductive effort that was allocated to egg production. Therefore, our finding, that female survival was increased when receiving paternal assistance provides, to our knowledge, the first definitive evidence that maternal care reduces female lifespan. These results are of major importance to theoretical models on the evolution of parental care. VL - 15 N1 - EnglishArticleJANJ EVOLUTION BIOL ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Towards a resolution of the lek paradox JF - Nature Y1 - 2001 A1 - Kotiaho, J. S. A1 - Simmons, L. W. A1 - Tomkins, J. L. SP - 684 EP - 686 KW - attractiveness KW - body KW - condition indexes KW - condition-dependent traits KW - estimating fitness KW - evolution KW - genetic-variation KW - mating preferences KW - natural-selection KW - offspring condition KW - sexually selected trait AB - Genetic benefits in the shape of 'good genes' have been invoked to explain costly female choice in the absence of direct fitness benefits(1-3). Little genetic variance in fitness traits is expected, however, because directional selection tends to drive beneficial alleles to fixation(4-6). There seems to be little potential, therefore, for female choice to result in genetic benefits, giving rise to the 'lek paradox'(7-9). Nevertheless, evidence shows that genetic variance persists despite directional selection(10,11) and genetic benefits of female choice are frequently reported(12,13). A theoretical solution to the lek paradox has been proposed on the basis of two assumptions(14): that traits are condition-dependent, and that condition shows high genetic variance. The observed genetic variability in sexual traits will be accounted for, because a proportion of the genetic variance in condition will be captured and expressed in the trait(14). Here we report results from experiments showing that male courtship rate in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus is a condition-dependent trait that is preferred by females. More importantly, male condition has high genetic variance and is genetically correlated with courtship rate. Our results thereby represent a significant step towards a resolution of the lek paradox. VL - 410 UR - ://000167875400045 N1 - Times Cited: 14Cited Reference Count: 30Cited References: ALATALO RV, 1998, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V265, P2297 ANDERSSON M, 1986, EVOLUTION, V40, P804 ANDERSSON M, 1994, SEXUAL SELECTION ARNOLD SJ, 1984, EVOLUTION, V38, P709 BORGIA G, 1979, SEXUAL SELECTION REP, P19 CUNNINGHAM EJA, 2000, NATURE, V404, P74 DAVID P, 2000, NATURE, V406, P186 FALCONER DS, 1989, INTRO QUANTITATIVE G FISHER RA, 1958, GENETICAL THEORY NAT GIL D, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P126 GRIFFITH SC, 1999, NATURE, V400, P358 HOULE D, 1992, GENETICS, V130, P195 HUNT J, 1997, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V41, P109 JAKOB EM, 1996, OIKOS, V77, P61 JOHNSTONE RA, 1995, BIOL REV, V70, P1 KIRKPATRICK M, 1991, NATURE, V350, P33 KOTIAHO JS, 2000, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V48, P188 KOTIAHO JS, 1999, OIKOS, V87, P399 MERILA J, 1996, FUNCT ECOL, V10, P465 MERILA J, 1999, GENET RES, V73, P165 MOLLER AP, 1999, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V266, P85 POMIANKOWSKI A, 1988, OXFORD SURV EVOL BIO, V5, P136 POMIANKOWSKI A, 1995, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V260, P21 ROFF D, 1997, EVOLUTIONARY QUANTIT ROWE L, 1996, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V263, P1415 SCHLUTER D, 1988, EVOLUTION, V42, P849 SHELDON BC, 1997, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V264, P297 SHELDON BC, 2000, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V15, P397 TAYLOR PD, 1982, THEOR POPUL BIOL, V22, P392 WILKINSON GS, 1999, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V266, P1685EnglishArticle418DJNATURE ER -