@article {1817,
	title = {Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus},
	journal = {Evolution},
	volume = {54},
	number = {3},
	year = {2000},
	note = {Using Smart Source ParsingArticleEnglish},
	pages = {936-941},
	abstract = {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.},
	keywords = {Animalia-, Animals-, Arthropoda-, Arthropods-, Behavior-, body-size, brood-mass, Coleoptera-: Insecta-, Evolution-and-Adaptation, horn-: size-, Insects-, Invertebrata-, Invertebrates-, male-, male-p, Onthophagus-taurus [dung-beetle] (Coleoptera-): female-},
	author = {Hunt, J. and Simmons, L. W.}
}
@article {1818,
	title = {Behavioural dynamics of biparental care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus},
	journal = {Animal Behaviour},
	volume = {64},
	year = {2002},
	note = {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},
	month = {Jul},
	pages = {65-75},
	abstract = {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{\textquoteright}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.},
	keywords = {fluctuating asymmetry, male parental care, male-removal, orange-tufted, paternal investment, prisoners-dilemma game, red-winged blackbirds, reproductive, sexual conflict, success, sunbird, tree swallows},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000178657200008},
	author = {Hunt, J. and Simmons, L. W.}
}
@article {1822,
	title = {A cost of maternal care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus?},
	journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology},
	volume = {15},
	number = {1},
	year = {2002},
	note = {EnglishArticleJANJ EVOLUTION BIOL},
	pages = {57-64},
	abstract = {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.},
	keywords = {BREEDING BLUE TITS, BROOD-SIZE, CLUTCH-SIZE, drosophila-melanogaster, fluctuating asymmetry, LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION, life-history trade-off, Onthophagus taurus, PARENTAL, Parental care, reproductive cost, reproductive effort, SURVIVAL},
	author = {Hunt, J. and Simmons, L. W. and Kotiaho, J. S.}
}
@article {1872,
	title = {Towards a resolution of the lek paradox},
	journal = {Nature},
	volume = {410},
	number = {6829},
	year = {2001},
	note = {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},
	month = {Apr 5},
	pages = {684-686},
	abstract = {Genetic benefits in the shape of {\textquoteright}good genes{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteright}lek paradox{\textquoteright}(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.},
	keywords = {attractiveness, body, condition indexes, condition-dependent traits, estimating fitness, evolution, genetic-variation, mating preferences, natural-selection, offspring condition, sexually selected trait},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000167875400045},
	author = {Kotiaho, J. S. and Simmons, L. W. and Tomkins, J. L.}
}
