Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues

Nature

Volumn 401, Issue 6749, 1999, Pages 155-157

  Petrie, Marion ^a   Krupa, Andrew ^b   Bucke, Terry ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BIRD; DNA FINGERPRINTING; LEARNING; MATING TYPE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL ASPECT;

ANIMALIA; AVES; PAVO CRISTATUS;

EID: 0033539121     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/43651     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Höglund, J. & Alatalo, R. V. Leks (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1995).
2. Kokko, H., Linaström, J. Kin selection and the evolution of leks: whose success do young males maximise? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 919-923 (1996).
3. Kokko, H., Sutherland, W. J., Lindström, J., Reynolds, J. D. & Mackenzie, A. Individual mating success, lek stability, and the neglected limitations of statistical power. Anim. Behav. 56, 755-762 (1998).
4. Alatalo, R. V., Höglund, J., Lundberg, A. & Sutherland, W. J. Evolution of black grouse leks - female preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behav. Ecol. 3, 53-59 (1992).
5. Widemo, F. & Owens, I. P. F. Lek size, male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature 373, 148-151 (1995).
6. Petrie, M., Halliday, T. & Sanders, C. Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim. Behav. 41, 323-352 (1991).
7. Manly, B. F. Randomisation, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology 2nd edn (Chapman & Hall, London, 1997).
8. Bruford, M. W., Hanotte, O., Brookfield, J. F. Y. & Burke, T. in Molecular Genetic Analysis of Populations: A Practical Approach 2nd edn (ed. Hoelzel, A. R.) 287-336 (IRL, Oxford, 1998).
9. Petrie, M. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371, 598-599 (1994).
10. Höglund, J., Alatalo, R. V., Lundberg, A., Rintamäki, P. T. & Lindell, J. Microsatellite markers reveal the potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 813-816 (1999).
11. Lacy, R. C. & Sherman, P. W. Kin recognition by phenotype matching. Am. Nat. 121, 489-512 (1983).
12. Grosberg, R. K. & Quinn, J. F. The genetic control and consequences of kin recognition by the larvae of a colonial marine invertebrate. Nature 322, 457-459 (1986).
13. Potts, W. K., Manning, C. J. & Wakeland, E. K. Mating patterns in semi-natural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature 352, 619-621 (1991).
14. Getz, W. M. & Smith, K. B. Genetic kin recognition: honey bees discriminate between full and half sisters. Nature 302, 148 (1983).
15. Grafen, A. Do animals really recognise kin? Anim. Behav. 39, 42-54 (1990).
16. Alexander, R. D. Epigenetic rules and Darwinian algorithms: the adaptive study of learning and development. Ethol. Sociobiol. 11, 241-303 (1990).
17. Sherman, P. W. Multiple mating and kin recognition by self-inspection. Ethol. Sociobiol. 12, 377-386 (1991).
18. Sherman, P. W., Reeve, H. K. & Pfennig, D. W. in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4th edn (eds Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B.) 69-97 (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1997).
19. Blaustein, A. R., Bekoff, M. & Daniels, T. J. in Kin Recognition in Animals (eds Fletcher, D. J. C. & Michener, C. D.) 287-332 (Wiley, New York, 1987).
20. Hanotte, O., Burke, T., Armour, J. A. L. & Jeffreys, A. J. Hypervariable minisatellite DNA sequences in the Indian peafowl Pavo cristatus. Genomics 9, 587-597 (1991).
21. Manly, B. F. J. RT, A Program for Randomization Testing, version 2.1. (Centre for Applied Statistics and Mathematics, University of Otago, 1997).