Zizzari Z Valentina, Jessen Andrea, Koene Joris M
Department of Ecological Science-Animal Ecology, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Curr Zool. 2017 Oct;63(5):573-579. doi: 10.1093/cz/zow089. Epub 2016 Aug 13.
In the animal kingdom there are countless strategies via which males optimize their reproductive success when faced with male-male competition. These male strategies typically fall into two main categories: pre- and post-copulatory competition. Within these 2 categories, a set of behaviors, referred to as reproductive suppression, is known to cause inhibition of reproductive physiology and/or reproductive behavior in an otherwise fertile individual. What becomes evident when considering examples of reproductive suppression is that these strategies conventionally encompass reproductive interference strategies that occur between members of a hierarchical social group. However, mechanisms aimed at impairing a competitor's reproductive output are also present in non-social animals. Yet, current thinking emphasizes the importance of sociality as the primary driving force of reproductive suppression. Therefore, the question arises as to whether there is an actual difference between reproductive suppression strategies in social animals and equivalent pre-copulatory competition strategies in non-social animals. In this perspective paper we explore a broad taxonomic range of species whose individuals do not repeatedly interact with the same individuals in networks and yet, depress the fitness of rivals. Examples like alteration of male reproductive physiology, female mimicry, rival spermatophore destruction, and cementing the rival's genital region in non-social animals, highlight that male pre-copulatory reproductive suppression and male pre-copulatory competition overlap. Finally, we highlight that a distinction between male reproductive interference in animals with and without a social hierarchy might obscure important similarities and does not help to elucidate why different proximate mechanisms evolved. We therefore emphasize that male reproductive suppression need not be restricted to social animals.
在动物王国中，当面临雄性间的竞争时，雄性有无数种策略来优化它们的繁殖成功率。这些雄性策略通常可分为两大类：交配前竞争和交配后竞争。在这两类中，有一组行为被称为生殖抑制，已知它会导致原本可育个体的生殖生理和/或生殖行为受到抑制。在考虑生殖抑制的例子时，显而易见的是，这些策略通常包括在等级社会群体成员之间发生的生殖干扰策略。然而，旨在损害竞争对手繁殖产出的机制在非社会性动物中也存在。然而，目前的观点强调社会性是生殖抑制的主要驱动力。因此，问题就来了，社会性动物的生殖抑制策略与非社会性动物中类似的交配前竞争策略之间是否存在实际差异。在这篇观点论文中，我们探讨了广泛分类范围内的物种，这些物种的个体不会在网络中反复与相同个体互动，但仍会降低竞争对手的适合度。非社会性动物中雄性生殖生理的改变、雌性拟态、竞争对手精荚破坏以及固定竞争对手生殖器区域等例子表明，雄性交配前生殖抑制和雄性交配前竞争存在重叠。最后，我们强调，区分有社会等级和无社会等级动物中的雄性生殖干扰可能会掩盖重要的相似之处，无助于阐明不同的近端机制为何会进化。因此，我们强调雄性生殖抑制不一定局限于社会性动物。
