Caring males do not respond to cues about losses in paternity in the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides

Coevolution of female fidelity and male help in populations with alternative reproductive tactics

In socially monogamous species, pair-bonded males often continue to provide care to all offspring in their nests despite some degree of paternity loss due to female extra-pair copulation. Previous theoretical models suggested that females can use their within-pair offspring as 'hostages' to blackmail their social mates, so that they continue to provide care to the brood at low levels of cuckoldry. These models, however, rely on the assumption of sufficiently accurate male detection of cuckoldry and the reduction of parental effort in case of suspicion. Therefore, they cannot explain the abundant cases where cuckolded males continue to provide extensive care to the brood. Here we use an analytical population genetics model and an individual-based simulation model to explore the coevolution of female fidelity and male help in populations with two genetically determined alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs): sneakers that achieve paternity solely via extra-pair copulations and bourgeois that form a mating pair and spend some efforts in brood care. We show that when the efficiency of mate guarding is intermediate, the bourgeois males can evolve to 'specialize' in providing care by spending more than 90% of time in helping their females while guarding them as much as possible, despite frequent cuckoldry by the sneakers. We also show that when sneakers have tactic-specific adaptations and thus are more competitive than the bourgeois in gaining extra-pair fertilizations, the frequency of sneakers and the degrees of female fidelity and male help can fluctuate in evolutionary cycles. Our theoretical predictions highlight the need for further empirical tests in species with ARTs.

Biparental negotiation or larval begging? Determinant of male provisioning in a burying beetle (Nicrophorus quadripunctatus)

In species showing biparental care, parents often adjust their level of care facultatively. Partners can potentially monitor each other directly (modify their effort sequentially in direct response to the prior effort of their mate) or indirectly (parents modify their effort through the begging rates of their offspring). This study examined whether partner negotiation or begging by larvae best explains male provisioning in Nicrophorus quadripunctatus. The frequency of males approaching larvae to feed did not increase with either female removal or female handicapping. However, larval begging toward males increased with female removal, but not with female handicapping. This suggests that larvae are not affected by the change of female investment in care but larvae reacted to the absence of a female parent. Although larvae begged more towards the male when the female was removed, my findings show that males did not respond by increasing their care, which suggests that males are insensitive to variation in their partner’s state or offspring behaviour in N. quadripunctatus.

Nest defense in the face of cuckoldry: evolutionary rather than facultative adaptation to chronic paternity loss

Background

Raising unrelated offspring is typically wasteful of parental resources and so individuals are expected to reduce or maintain low levels of parental effort when their parentage is low. This can involve facultative, flexible adjustments of parental care to cues of lost parentage in the current brood, stabilizing selection for a low level of paternal investment, or an evolutionary reduction in parental investment in response to chronically low parentage.

Results

We studied parental care in Variabilichromis moorii, a socially monogamous, biparental cichlid fish, whose mating system is characterized by frequent cuckoldry and whose primary form of parental care is offspring defense. We combine field observations with genetic parentage analyses to show that while both parents defend their nest against intruding con- and hetero-specifics, males and females may do so for different reasons. Males in the study group (30 breeding pairs) sired 0–100% (median 83%) of the fry in their nests. Males defended less against immediate threats to the offspring, and more against threats to their territories, which are essential for the males’ future reproductive success. Males also showed no clear relationship between their share of defense and their paternity of the brood. Females, on the other hand, were related to nearly all the offspring under their care, and defended almost equally against all types of threats.

Conclusion

Overall, males contributed less to defense than females and we suggest that this asymmetry is the result of an evolutionary response by males to chronically high paternity loss in this species. Although most males in the current study group achieved high parentage in their nests, the average paternity in V. moorii, sampled across multiple seasons, is only about 55%. We highlight the importance and complexity of studying nest defense as a form of parental care in systems where defense may serve not only to protect current offspring, but also to ensure future reproductive success by maintaining a territory.