Why Males Compete Rather Than Care, with an Application to Supplying Collective Goods.

The question of why males invest more into competition than offspring care is an age-old problem in evolutionary biology. On the one hand, paternal care could increase the fraction of offspring surviving to maturity. On the other hand, competition could increase the likelihood of more paternities and thus the relative number of offspring produced. While drivers of these behaviours are often intertwined with a wide range of other constraints, here we present a simple dynamic model to investigate the benefits of these two alternative fitness-enhancing pathways. Using this framework, we evaluate the sensitivity of equilibrium dynamics to changes in payoffs for male allocation to mating versus parenting. Even with strong effects of care on offspring survivorship, small competitive benefits can outweigh benefits from care. We consider an application of the model that includes men's competition for hunting reputations where big game supplies a benefit to all and find a frequency-dependent parameter region within which, depending on initial population proportions, either strategy may outperform the other. Results demonstrate that allocation to competition gives males greater fitness than offspring care for a range of circumstances that are dependent on life-history parameters and, for the large-game hunting application, frequency dependent. The greater the collective benefit, the more individuals can be selected to supply it.