Log in

Offspring sired by subordinate red deer males under controlled conditions: did some females prefer not to mate with the alpha male?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
acta ethologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Both male-male competition and female choice are important forces in sexual selection that may act in concert. In red deer (Cervus elaphus), rutting activities related to male-male competition are highly conspicuous and have received most research attention. However, there is increasing evidence that females can gain by selecting mates. Due to the additive genetic benefits of a sire’s dominance rank, females may prefer them as mates, so that selection for male traits associated with dominance can be reinforced by female choice. On the other hand, recent evidence suggests that females might prefer male features not related to dominance and thus affect the distribution of mating outcomes. This predicts mating with less dominant males, but no study has so far investigated to which extent some females may do so when the dominant male is available. Here we use controlled captivity conditions to study whether females mate with subordinate males when dominant males are present. By means of parentage analyses conducted after genoty** the offspring, we found that dominant males did not sire all the offspring, the mean percentage of offspring sired by subordinate males being 13.03%. This result has consequences for the evolutionary reinforcement of components of sexual selection in red deer and might be used as a starting point for future studies on the red deer mating system and sexual selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amos W, Worthington Wilmer J, Fullard K, Burg TM, Croxall JP, Bloch D, Coulson T (2001) The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 268:2021–2027

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Carling MD, Wiseman PA, Byers JA (2003) Microsatellite analysis reveals multiple paternity in a population of wild pronghorn antelopes (Antilocapra americana). J Mamm 84:1237–1243

    Google Scholar 

  • Carranza J (1995) Female attraction by males versus sites in territorial rutting red deer. Anim Behav 50:445–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Carranza J, Valencia J (1999) Red deer females collect on male clumps at mating areas. Behav Ecol 10:525–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Carranza J, Alvarez F, Redondo T (1990) Territoriality as a mating strategy in red deer. Anim Behav 50:445–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Carranza J, Pérez-González J, Mateos C, Fernández-García JL (2009) Parents’ genetic dissimilarity and offspring sex in a polygynous mammal. Mol Ecol 18:4964–4973

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carranza J, Salinas M, de Andrés D, Pérez-González J (2016) Iberian red deer: paraphyletic nature at mtDNA but nuclear markers support its genetic identity. Ecol Evol 6:905–922

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton BD, Reby D, McComb K (2007) Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biol Lett 3:382–385

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chesser RK (1991) Influence of gene flow and breeding tactics on gene diversity within populations. Genetics 129:437–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Edinburg University Press, Edinburg, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1988) Reproductive success in male and female red deer. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Studies of Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems. Chicago, pp 325–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock T, McAuliffe K (2009) Female mate choice in mammals. Q Rev Biol 84:3–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coltman DW, Pilkington JG, Smith JA, Pemberton JM (1999) Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free living, island population. Evolution 53:1259–1267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Appleton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Acevedo J, Zamorano A, DeYung RW, Campbell TA, Hewitt DG, Long DB (2011) Promiscuous mating in feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Wildlife Res 37:539–546

    Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung RW, Demarais S, Gonzales RA, Honeycutt RL, Gee KL (2002) Multiple paternity in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) revealed by DNA microsatellites. J Mamm 83:884–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditchkoff SS, Lochmiller RL, Masters RE, Hoofer SR, Van Den Bussche RA (2001) Major-histocompatibility-complex-associated variation in secondary sexual traits of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): evidence for good-genes advertisement. Evolution 55:616–625

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Double MC, Cockburn A (2003) Subordinate superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) parasitize the reproductive success of attractive dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 270:379–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen DJ (2008) The evolution of animal weapons. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:387–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447:1107–1110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guinnes FE, Lincoln GA, Short RV (1971) The reproductive cycle of the female red deer. J Reprod Fert 27:427–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ (2009) Male–male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J Evol Biol 22:13–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings DJ, Hayden TJ, Gammell MP (2013) Personality and predictability in fallow deer fighting behaviour: the relationship with mating success. Anim Behav 86:1041–1047

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotiaho JS, LeBas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL (2008) On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 23:1–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruuk LEB, Slate J, Pemberton JM, Brotherstone S, Guinness FE, Clutton-Brock TH (2002) Antler size in red deer: heritability and selection but no evolution. Evolution 56:1683–1695

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde J, Soler AJ, Gomendio M (2005) Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 272:149–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín J, Carranza J, López P, Alarcos S, Pérez-González J (2014) A new sexual signal in rutting male red deer: age related chemical scent constituents in the belly black spot. Mamm Biol 79:362–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays HL, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554–559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Millar SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF (1988) A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acid Res 16:1215

    Google Scholar 

  • Pemberton JM, Albon SD, Dover LE (1992) Behavioural estimates of male mating success tested by DNA fingerprinting in a polygynous mammal. Behav Ecol 3:66–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-González J, Carranza J (2009) Female-biased dispersal under conditions of low male mating competition in a polygynous mammal. Mol Ecol 18:4617–4630

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-González J, Barbosa AM, Carranza J, Torres-Porras J (2010) Relative effect of food supplementation and natural resources on female red deer distribution in a Mediterranean ecosystem. J Wildl Manag 74:1701–1708

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-González J, Costa V, Santos P, Slate J, Carranza J, Fernández-Llario P, Zsolnai A, Monteiro NM, Anton I, Buzgó J, Varga G, Beja-Pereira A (2014) Males and females contribute unequally to offspring genetic diversity in the polygynandrous mating system of wild boar. PLoS One 9:e115394

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shuster SM (2009) Sexual selection and mating systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:10009–10016

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stopher KV, Nussey DH, Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness F, Morris A, Pemberton JM (2011) The red deer rut revisited: female excursions but no evidence females move to mate with preferred males. Behav Ecol 22:808–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Stopher KV, Nussey DH, Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness F, Morris A, Pemberton JM (2012) Re-mating across years and intralineage polygyny are associated with greater than expected levels of inbreeding in wild red deer. J Evol Biol 25:2457–2469

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Suttie JM (1979) The effect of antler removal on dominance and fighting behaviour in farmed red deer stags. J Zool 190:217–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179

  • Vanpé C, Gaillard J-M, Kjellander P, Mysterud A, Magnien P, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Klein F, Liberg O, Hewison AJM (2007) Antler size provides an honest signal of male phenotypic quality in roe deer. Am Nat 169:481–493

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) Micro-checker: software for identifying and correcting genoty** errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade MJ, Shuster SM (2004) Sexual selection: harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. Am Nat 164:83–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley RH, Poston J (1996) Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50:1371–1381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wong BBM, Candolin U (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev 80:559–571

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sophie Mowles and two anonymous reviewers for comments to the manuscript. Jose Manuel Seoane and Sheila Martín helped in field work and sample collection. Carmen Marín Arjona contributed with laboratory work. Ignacio Enrile and Manuel Reglero provided permissions and facilitates for field work and sampling.

Funding

This work was funded by projects CGL2013-48122-P and CGL2016-77052-P from the Spanish Ministry of Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Pérez-González.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study never provoked additional hurt or stress to the animals. All applicable international, national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 634 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pérez-González, J., Carranza, J. Offspring sired by subordinate red deer males under controlled conditions: did some females prefer not to mate with the alpha male?. acta ethol 23, 31–37 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-020-00336-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-020-00336-9

Keywords

Navigation