Multiple mating by females is widely thought to encourage post-mating sexual selection and enhance female fitness. We show that whether polyandrous mating has these effects depends on two conditions. Condition 1 is the pattern of sperm utilization by females; specifically, whether, among females, male mating number, m (i.e. the number of times a male mates with one or more females) covaries with male offspring number, o . Polyandrous mating enhances sexual selection only when males who are successful at multiple mating also sire most or all of each of their mates' offspring, i.e. only when Cov ♂ ( m , o ), is positive. Condition 2 is the pattern of female reproductive life-history; specifically, whether female mating number, m , covaries with female offspring number, o . Only semelparity does not erode sexual selection, whereas iteroparity (i.e. when Cov ♀ ( m , o ), is positive) always increases the variance in offspring numbers among females, which always decreases the intensity of sexual selection on males. To document the covariance between mating number and offspring number for each sex, it is necessary to assign progeny to all parents, as well as identify mating and non-mating individuals. To document significant fitness gains by females through iteroparity, it is necessary to determine the relative magnitudes of male as well as female contributions to the total variance in relative fitness. We show how such data can be collected, how often they are collected, and we explain the circumstances in which selection favouring multiple mating by females can be strong or weak.

Some animals have the capacity to produce different alarm calls for terrestrial and aerial predators. However, it is not clear what cognitive processes are involved in generating these calls. One possibility is the position of the predator: Anything on the ground receives a terrestrial predator call, and anything in the air receives an aerial predator call. Another possibility is that animals are able to recognize the physical features of predators and incorporate those into their calls. As a way of elucidating which of these mechanisms plays a primary role in generating the structure of different calls, we performed two field experiments with Gunnison’s prairie dogs. First, we presented the prairie dogs with a circle, a triangle, and a square, each moving across the colony at the same height and speed. Second, we presented the prairie dogs with two squares of differing sizes. DFA statistics showed that 82.6 percent of calls for the circle and 79.2 percent of the calls for the triangle were correctly classified, and 73.3 percent of the calls for the square were classified as either square or circle. Also, 100 percent of the calls for the larger square and 90 percent of the calls for the smaller square were correctly classified. Because both squares and circles are features of terrestrial predators and triangles are features of aerial predators, our results suggest that prairie dogs might have a cognitive mechanism that labels the abstract shape and size of different predators, rather than the position of the predator.

No abstract

Gunnison prairie dogs have been shown to produce alarm calls that incorporate information about predators [Slobodchikoff et al., Anim. Behav. 42, 713–719 (1991)], such as the species of predator and also a description of the color and general size of the predator. The alarm calls contain a series of harmonics that encode this information. The calls have been analyzed with discriminant function analysis (DFA) and classification techniques such as self-organizing neural networks. These tools have been able to show that very specific information is encoded in the calls. However, exactly how this information is encoded into the signal has proven to be elusive. We show examples of the specific information that is encoded, and present a hypothetic model of how that information is encoded into the signals.