Paternity, copulation disturbance and female choice in lekking black grouse

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 861-873

  Alatalo, Rauno V ^b   Burke, Terry ^c   Dann, Janine ^c   Hanotte, Olivier ^c   Höglund, Jacob ^d   Lundberg, Arne ^d   Moss, Robert ^a   Rintamäki, Pekka T ^e  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARENA; AVES; PHASIANIDAE; TETRAO TETRIX; TETRIX;

BLACK GROUSE; COPULATION; LEKKING; MATE CHOICE;

EID: 0030425972     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0234     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Alatalo, R. V., Höglund, J. & Lundberg, A. 1991. Lekking in the black grouse - a test of male viability. Nature, Lond., 352, 155-156.
2. Alatalo, R. V., Höglund, J., Lundberg, A. & Sutherland, W. A. 1992. Evolution of black grouse leks: female preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behav. Ecol., 3, 53-59.
3. Apollonio, M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Mari, F., Mattioli, S. & Sarno, B. 1992. To lek or not to lek: mating strategies of male fallow deer. Behav. Ecol., 3, 25-31.
4. Avery, M. I. 1984. Lekking in birds: choice, competition and reproductive constraints. Ibis, 126, 177-187.
5. Beehler, B. M. & Foster, M. S. 1988. Hotshots, hotspots and female preferences in the organization of lek mating systems. Am. Nat., 131, 203-219.
6. Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. P. 1992. Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences. London: Academic Press.
7. Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. P. 1993. Why do male birds stop copulating while their partners are still fertile? Anim. Behav., 45, 105-118.
8. Birkhead, T. R., Atkin, L. & Møller, A. P. 1987. Copulation behaviour of birds. Behaviour, 101, 101-138.
9. Bradbury, J. W. & Gibson, R. M. 1983. Leks and mate choice. In: Mate Choice (Ed. by P. Bateson), pp. 109-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bruford, M. W., Hanotte, O., Brookfield, J. F. Y. & Burke, T. 1992. Single-locus and multilocus DNA fingerprinting. In: Molecular Genetic Analysis of Populations: A Practical Approach (Ed. by A. R. Hoelzel), pp. 225-269. Oxford: IRL Press.
11. Burke, T. 1989. DNA fingerprinting and other methods for the study of mating success. Trends Ecol. Evol., 4, 139-144.
12. Burke, T. & Bruford, M. W. 1987. DNA fingerprinting in birds. Nature, Lond., 327, 149-152.
13. Dixon, A., Ross, D., O'Malley, S. L. C. & Burke, T. 1994. Paternal investment inversely related to degree of extra-pair paternity in the reed bunting. Nature, Lond., 371, 698-700.
14. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15. Foster, M. S. 1981. Cooperative behaviour and social organization of the swallow-tailed manakin (Chiroxiphia caudata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 9, 167-177.
16. Foster, M. S. 1983. Disruption, dispersion, and dominance in lek-breeding birds. Am. Nat., 122, 53-72.
17. Gibson, R. M. & Bradbury, J. W. 1986. Male and female mating strategies on sage grouse leks. In: Ecological Aspects of Social Organisation (Ed. by D. I. Rubenstein & R. W. Wrangham), pp. 379-398. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
18. Gibson, R. M. & Bradbury, J. W. 1987. Lek organization in sage grouse. Variations on a territorial theme. Auk, 104, 77-84.
19. Gosling, L. M. & Petrie, M. 1990. Lekking in topi: a consequence of satellite behaviour by small males at hotspots. Anim. Behav., 40, 272-287.
20. Grafen, A. 1990a. Biological signals as handicaps. J. theor. Biol., 144, 517-546.
21. Grafen, A. 1990b. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. theor. Biol., 144, 473-516.
22. Gratson, M. W., Gratson, G. K. & Bergerud, A. T. 1991. Male dominance and copulation disruption do not explain variance in male mating success on sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) leks. Behaviour, 118, 187-213.
23. Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science, 218, 384-387.
24. Hartzler, J. E. 1972. An analysis of sage grouse lek behavior. Ph.D. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.
25. Hjorth, I. 1963. Tvetydig kärlek-orreleken i ny belysning. Sver. Nat., 1963, 47-60.
26. Hjorth, I. 1970. Reproductive behaviour in Tetraonidae. Swedish Wildlife (Viltrevy), 7, 184-596.
27. Hogan-Warburg, A. J. 1966. Social behavior of the ruff, Philomachus pugnax (L.). Ardea, 54, 109-229.
28. Höglund, J., Alatalo, R. V. & Lundberg, A. 1990. Copying the mate choice of others? Observations on female black grouse. Behaviour, 114, 221-231.
29. Höglund, J., Alatalo, R. V. & Lundberg, A. 1992. The effects of parasites on male ornaments and female choice in the lek-breeding black grouse (Tetrao tetrix). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 30, 71-76.
30. Höglund, J., Montgomerie, R. & Widemo, F. 1993. Costs and consequences of variation in the size of ruff leks. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 32, 31-39.
31. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution, 45, 1431-1442.
32. Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V. & Thein, S. L. 1985. Hypervariable 'minisatellite' regions in human DNA. Nature, Lond., 314, 67-73.
33. Kempenaers, B., Verheyen, G. R., Van den Broeck, M., Burke, T., Van Broekhoven, C. & Dhondt, A. A. 1992. Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature, Lond., 357, 494-496.
34. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution, 36, 1-12.
35. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, Lond., 350, 33-38.
36. Koivisto, I. 1965. Behavior of the black grouse, Lyrurus tetrix (L.), during the spring display. Finn. Game Res., 26, 1-60.
37. Kruijt, J. P. & Hogan, J. A. 1967. Social behaviour on the lek in black grouse Lyrurus tetrix tetrix (L.). Ardea, 55, 203-240.
38. Kruijt, J. P. & de Vos, G. J. 1988. Individual variation in reproductive success in male black grouse, Tetrao tetrix L. In: Reproductive Success (Ed. by T. H. Clutton-Brock), pp. 279-290. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Kruijt, J. P., de Vos, G. J. & Bossema, I. 1972. The arena system of the black grouse. Proc. Int. Ornithol. Congr., XV, 399-423.
40. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic characters. Proc. natn Acad. Sci. USA, 78, 3721-3725.
41. Lank, D. B. & Smith, C. M. 1987. Conditional lekking in ruff (Philomachus pugnax). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 20, 137-145.
42. Le Croy, M. 1981. The genus Paradisaea - display and evolution. Am. Mus. Novit., 2714, 1-52.
43. McDonald, D. B. 1989. Cooperation under sexual selection: age-graded changes in a lekking bird. Am. Nat., 134, 709-730.
44. Møller, A. P. 1992. Frequency of female copulations with multiple males and sexual selection. Am. Nat., 139, 1089-1101.
45. Møller, A. P. & Birkhead, T. R. 1993. Cuckoldry and sociality: a comparative study of birds. Am. Nat., 142, 118-140.
46. Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev., 45, 525-567.
47. Parker, H., Mjelstad, H. & Solheim, J. T. 1989. Duration of fertility in capercaillie hens after separation from males. Ornis Scand., 20, 307-310.
48. Petrie, M., Hall, M., Halliday, T., Budgey, H. & Pierpoint, C. 1992. Multiple mating in a lekking bird: why do peahens mate with more than one male and with the same male more than once? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 31, 349-358.
49. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution, 45, 1422-1430.
50. Pruett-Jones, S. G. 1988. Lekking versus solitary display: temporal variations in dispersion in the buffbreasted sandpiper. Anim. Behav., 36, 1740-1752.
51. Reynolds, J. D. & Gross, R. M. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am. Nat., 136, 230-243.
52. Trail, P. W. 1985. Courtship disruption modifies mate choice in a lek-breeding bird. Science, 227, 778-780.
53. Trail, P. W. 1990. Why should lek-breeders be monomorphic? Evolution, 44, 1837-1852.
54. Trail, P. W. & Koutnik, D. L. 1986. Courtship disruption at the lek in the Guianan cock-of-the-rock. Ethology, 73, 197-218.
55. Van Rhijn, J. 1973. Behavioural dimorphism in male ruffs, Philomachus pugnax. Behaviour, 47, 153-229.
56. de Vos, G. J. 1993. Social behaviour of black grouse: an observational and experimental field study. Ardea, 71, 1-103.
57. Wagner, R. H. 1992. Extra-pair copulations in a lek: the secondary mating system of monogamous razorbills. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 31, 63-71.
58. Wiley, R. H. 1973. Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus. Anim. Behav. Monogr., 6, 87-169.
59. Wiley, R. H. 1991. Lekking in birds and mammals: behavioral and evolutionary issues. Adv. Study Behav., 20, 201-291.
60. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J. theor. Biol., 53, 205-214.