The availability of reproductive sites is a major factor shaping the behavior of males and females in species with resource-based mating systems. Using a meta-analytic approach, we tested five predictions directly or indirectly derived from the mating system theory. We expected that reproductive site limitation would lead to: (1) intense male-male competition for resource possession; (2) high variance in male reproductive success, generating high values of opportunity for sexual selection; (3) high intensity of selection on male traits related to resource possession; (4) high sperm competition risk; and (5) low quality of paternal care. We compiled information from observational and experimental studies that compared the reproductive behavior of individuals of the same species under low and high reproductive site limitation. We found that, when reproductive sites are limited, there is a slight increase in male-male competition, with higher rates of nest takeover and agonistic interactions, and a slight increase in the selection gradient on male traits, with successful males tending to be larger than unsuccessful males. Reproductive site limitation has no consistent effect on the opportunity for sexual selection and on the sperm competition risk. However, territorial males invest more in gonads and lose less paternity when reproductive sites are limited. There is also no clear effect of reproductive site limitation on the quality of paternal care, but few studies have addressed this subject. Taken together, our findings indicate that predictions on how reproductive site limitation affects several aspects of resource-based mating systems have weak empirical support. These predictions do not consider the plasticity in the mating tactics of males and females, which make them too simplistic. Moreover, since the original proposition of the mating system theory, our understanding of sperm competition increased a lot. We now know that accurate predictions on the intensity and direction of sexual selection should take into account both pre- and post-copulatory processes. Finally, the interplay between sexual selection and parental care is complex, and the original framework of mating system theory does not provide sufficient elements to derive clear and taxonomically broad predictions / A disponibilidade de sítios reprodutivos influencia tanto o comportamento de machos quanto de fêmeas em espécies cujo sistema de acasalamento depende da defesa de recursos. Usando uma abordagem meta-analítica, testamos cinco previsões direta ou indiretamente relacionadas à teoria de sistemas de acasalamento. Esperávamos que a limitação de sítios reprodutivos promoveria: (1) aumento na competição masculina pela posse de recursos; (2) aumento na variância do sucesso reprodutivo dos machos, gerando valores alto de oportunidade para a seleção sexual; (3) aumento da intensidade da seleção sobre características masculinas relacionadas à posse de recursos; (4) aumento no risco de competição espermática e (5) diminuição da qualidade do cuidado paternal. Compilamos informações de estudos observacionais e experimentais que compararam o comportamento reprodutivo de indivíduos da mesma espécie em situação de alta e baixa disponibilidade de sítios reprodutivos. Encontramos que, quando os sítios reprodutivos são escassos, há um ligeiro aumento na competição masculina, com maiores taxas de roubo de ninhos e interações agonísticas, e um ligeiro aumento no gradiente de seleção sobre características masculinas, com machos bem sucedidos tendendo a ser maiores do que machos mal sucedidos em monopolizar recursos. A disponibilidade de sítios reprodutivos não teve nenhum efeito consistente sobre a oportunidade para a seleção sexual e o risco de competição espermática. Entretanto, machos territoriais investiram mais em gônadas e perderam menos paternidade quando os sítios reprodutivos eram escassos. Não encontramos nenhum efeito da disponibilidade de sítios reprodutivos sobre a qualidade do cuidado paternal. Em conjunto, nossos resultados indicam que as previsões sobre como a disponibilidade de sítios reprodutivos influencia diversos aspectos de sistemas de acasalamento baseados na defesa de recursos têm fraco respaldo empírico. Tais previsões não consideram a plasticidade nas táticas de acasalamento de machos e fêmeas, tornando-as demasiadamente simplistas. Adicionalmente, desde a formulação original da teoria de sistemas de acasalamento, nossa compreensão sobre competição espermática aumentou. Sabemos atualmente que previsões acuradas sobre a intensidade e direção da seleção sexual devem levar em consideração processos pré- e pós-copulatórios. Finalmente, a interconexão entre seleção sexual e cuidado parental é complexa e a teoria original de sistemas de acasalamento não provê elementos suficientes para a construção de previsões claras e de amplo escopo taxonômico

Contrairement à d’autres groupes animaux, chez les primates, la hiérarchie de dominance ne détermine pas systématiquement le succès reproductif des mâles. Afin de comprendre pourquoi, j’ai étudié les stratégies de reproduction des mâles et des femelles dans un groupe de macaques rhésus de la population semi-libre de Cayo Santiago (Porto Rico), collectant des données comportementales, hormonales et génétiques pendant deux saisons de reproduction. Les résultats se résument en cinq points. 1. Les nouveaux mâles qui ont immigré dans le groupe d’étude occupaient tous les rangs les plus subordonnés de la hiérarchie de dominance et ont monté en rang suite au départ de mâles plus dominants. Ainsi, l’acquisition d’un rang supérieur s’est faite passivement, en absence de conflits. Par conséquent, les mâles dominants étaient généralement d’âge mature et avaient résidé plus longtemps dans le groupe que les mâles subordonnés. 2. L’accès des mâles aux femelles est en accord avec le « modèle de la priorité d’accès » selon lequel le nombre de femelles simultanément en œstrus détermine le rang de dominance du mâle le plus subordonné qui peut avoir accès à une femelle (p. ex. le mâle de rang 4 s’il y a quatre femelles en œstrus). Bien que les mâles dominants aient eu plus de partenaires et aient monopolisé les femelles de qualité supérieure (dominance, parité, âge) pendant leur période ovulatoire (identifiée grâce au profil hormonal de la progestérone), le rang de dominance n’a pas déterminé le succès reproductif, les mâles intermédiaires ayant engendré significativement plus de rejetons que prédit. Il est possible que ces jeunes adultes aient produit un éjaculat de meilleure qualité que les mâles dominants d’âge mature, leur donnant un avantage au niveau de la compétition spermatique. 3. Les mâles dominants préféraient les femelles dominantes, mais cette préférence n’était pas réciproque, ces femelles coopérant plutôt avec les mâles intermédiaires, plus jeunes et moins familiers (c.-à-d. courte durée de résidence). Au contraire, les femelles subordonnées ont coopéré avec les mâles dominants. La préférence des femelles pour les mâles non familiers pourrait être liée à l’attrait pour un nouveau bagage génétique. 4. L’intensité de la couleur de la peau du visage des femelles pendant le cycle ovarien était corrélée au moment de la phase ovulatoire, une information susceptible d’être utilisée par les mâles pour maximiser leur probabilité de fécondation. 5. Les femelles retiraient des bénéfices directs de leurs liaisons sexuelles. En effet, les femelles en liaison sexuelle bénéficiaient d’un niveau de tolérance plus élevé de la part de leur partenaire mâle lorsqu’elles étaient à proximité d’une source de nourriture défendable, comparativement aux autres femelles. En somme, bien que les mâles dominants aient bénéficié d’une priorité d’accès aux femelles fertiles, cela s’est avéré insuffisant pour leur garantir la fécondation de ces femelles parce que celles-ci avaient plusieurs partenaires sexuels. Il semble que l’âge et la durée de résidence des mâles, corrélats de leur mode d’acquisition du rang, aient confondu l’effet du rang de dominance. / In contrast to most animal groups, dominance hierarchy does not systematically determine male reproductive success in primates. In order to investigate why, I studied male and female reproductive strategies in a group of free-ranging rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico. I collected behavioural, genetic, and hormonal data during two consecutive mating seasons. My results are summarized below. 1. All new males who immigrated into the study group occupied the lowest-ranking position in the dominance hierarchy and rose in rank as the higher-ranking males left the group. Achieving a higher dominance rank occurred passively, without physical conflict. Thus, dominant males were mature individuals who resided longest in the group. 2. Male access to oestrus females followed the predictions of the ‘priority of access’ model, in which the number of females in oestrus determines the rank of the lowest-ranking male who can access a female (e.g. the fourth ranking male if four females are in oestrus). Even though dominant males obtained more mating partners and monopolised higher quality females (dominance, parity, age) during the ovulation window (as identified using progesterone profiles), dominance rank did not determine reproductive success, as intermediate-ranking males sired significantly more infants than predicted. It is likely that those young, intermediate-ranking adult males produced high quality ejaculate, giving them an advantage in sperm competition. 3. Dominant males preferred high-ranking females, but this preference was not reciprocal; high-ranking females cooperated with younger and less familiar intermediate-ranking males. Conversely, subordinate females cooperated with dominant males. Female preference for non-familiar males (i.e. short residency in the group) may be explained by an attraction to a novel genetic pool. 4. Female facial color intensity during the ovarian cycle was correlated with the timing of the ovulation window. This information may be used by males in order to maximize their fertilisation probability. 5. Consort females enjoyed a higher level of tolerance from their male partner when they were in proximity to a monopolisable food source, compared to other, non-consort females. This suggests that females obtained direct benefits from their sexual consorts. In conclusion, even though dominant males had priority access to ovulating females in the group, this was insufficient to guarantee fertilisation when females had several sexual partners. It appears that males’ age and length of residency, both correlates of their rank acquisition mode, may have been confounding factors in dominance rank.

No description available.