Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Jan 21;368(1613):20120335. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0335. Print 2013 Mar 5.
We give a historic overview and critical perspective of polyandry in the context of sexual selection. Early approaches tended to obfuscate the fact that the total matings (copulations) by the two sexes is equal, neglecting female interests and that females often mate with (or receive ejaculates from) more than one male (polyandry). In recent years, we have gained much more insight into adaptive reasons for polyandry, particularly from the female perspective. However, costs and benefits of multiple mating are unlikely to be equal for males and females. These must be assessed for each partner at each potential mating between male i and female j, and will often be highly asymmetric. Interests of i and j may be in conflict, with (typically, ultimately because of primordial sex differences) i benefitting and j losing from mating, although theoretically the reverse can also obtain. Polyandry reduces the sex difference in Bateman gradients, and the probability of sexual conflict over mating by: (i) reducing the potential expected value of each mating to males in inverse proportion to the number of mates per female per clutch, and also often by (ii) increasing ejaculate costs through increased sperm allocation. It can nevertheless create conflict over fertilization and increase conflict over parental investment. The observed mean mating frequency for the population (and hence the degree of polyandry) is likely, at least in part, to reflect a resolution of sexual conflict. Immense diversity exists across and within taxa in the extent of polyandry, and views on its significance have changed radically, as we illustrate using avian polyandry as a case study. Despite recent criticisms, the contribution of the early pioneers of sexual selection, Darwin and Bateman, remains generally valid, and should not, therefore, be negated; as with much in science, pioneering advances are more often amplified and refined, rather than replaced with entirely new paradigms.
我们对性选择背景下的一妻多夫制进行了历史性的概述和批判性的分析。早期的方法往往掩盖了一个事实,即两性的总交配(交配)次数是相等的,忽视了女性的利益,而且女性经常与(或从)多个雄性交配(一妻多夫制)。近年来,我们从女性的角度对一妻多夫制的适应原因有了更多的了解。然而,多配偶的成本和收益对男性和女性来说不太可能是平等的。这些必须在每对潜在的雄性 i 和雌性 j 之间的交配中进行评估,而且通常是高度不对称的。i 和 j 的利益可能存在冲突,i 受益而 j 受损(通常最终是由于原始的性别差异),尽管理论上也可能相反。一妻多夫制通过以下两种方式减少了两性 Bateman 梯度的差异和交配过程中发生性冲突的可能性:(i)通过使每个雌性每次产卵与每个雌性的交配次数成反比来降低雄性每次交配的预期价值,而且通常也通过(ii)通过增加精子分配来增加精子成本。然而,它可以引发受精方面的冲突,并增加亲代投资方面的冲突。观察到的种群平均交配频率(因此一妻多夫制的程度)至少部分反映了性冲突的解决。在不同的分类群之间和之内,一妻多夫制的程度存在巨大的多样性,我们以鸟类的一妻多夫制为例,说明了其重要性的观点发生了根本性的变化。尽管最近受到了批评,但性选择的早期先驱达尔文和贝特曼的贡献仍然基本有效,因此不应被否定;就像科学中的许多情况一样,开创性的进展更多的是被放大和完善,而不是被完全替代。