Lekking satin bowerbird males aggregate with relatives to mitigate aggression

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 410-415

  Reynolds, Sheila M ^a,b   Christman, Mary C ^c   Uy, J Albert C ^d   Patricelli, Gail L ^e   Braun, Michael J ^a,b,f   Borgia, Gerald ^a,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION   (United States)

^c University of Florida ^*  (United States)

^d SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f Bldg 142   (United States)

Author keywords

Aggression; Bowerbirds; Genetic population structure; Kin selection; Leks; Microsatellites; Relatedness; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATION BEHAVIOR; AGGRESSION; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; GENETIC MARKER; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; KIN SELECTION; PASSERINE; POPULATION GENETICS; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

PTILONORHYNCHIDAE; PTILONORHYNCHUS VIOLACEUS;

EID: 64949119982     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn146     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bradbury J. 1981. The evolution of leks. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW, editors. The evolution of social behavior. Concord (MA): Chiron Press. p. 138-169.
2. Bardeleben C, Moore RL, Nichols JA, Austin JJ, Robson TE. 2005. Isolation of polymorphic tetranucleotide microsatellite markers in the satin bowerbird, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Mol Ec Notes. 5:305-307.
3. Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacaille V, Lotz S. 1996. Use of microsatellite loci to classify by relatedness. Mol Ecol. 5:393-401.
4. Borgia G. 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Blum M, Blum A, editors. Seuxal selection and reproductive competition. New York: Academic Press. p. 19-80.
5. Borgia G. 1985a. Bower destruction and sexual competition in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 18:91-100.
6. Borgia G. 1985b. Bower quality, number of decorations and mating success of male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus): an experimental analysis. Anim Behav. 33:266-271.
7. Borgia G. 1995. Why do bowerbirds build bowers? Am Sci. 83:542-547.
8. Borgia G, Gore MA. 1986. Feather stealing in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus)-male competition and the quality of display. Anim Behav. 34:727-738.
9. Borgia G, Mueller U. 1992. Bower destruction, decoration stealing, and female choice in the spotted bowerbird Chlamydera maculata. Emu. 92:11-18.
10. Bouzat JL, Johnson K. 2004. Genetic structure among closely spaced leks in a peripheral population of lesser prairie-chickens. Mol Ecol. 13:499-505.
11. Bravery BD, Nicholls JA, Goldizen AW. 2006. Patterns of painting in satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus and males' responses to changes in their paint. J Avian Biol. 37:77-83.
12. DuVal EH. 2007. Adaptive advantages of cooperative courtship for subordinate male lance-tailed manakins. Am Nat. 169:423-432.
13. Emlen ST, Wrege PH. 1988. The role of kinship in helping decisions among white-fronted bee-eaters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 23:305-315.
14. Gibbons JD, Pratt JW. 1975. P-values: interpretation and methodology. Am Stat. 29:20-25.
15. Gibson RM, Pires D, Delaney KS, Wayne RK. 2005. Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that greater sage grouse leks are not kin groups. Mol Ecol. 14:4453-4459.
16. Gill FB. 1995. Ornithology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
17. Gilliard ET. 1969. Birds of paradise and bowerbirds. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
18. Griffin AS, West SA. 2002. Kin selection: fact and fiction. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:15-21.
19. Hamilton WD. 1964. Genetical evolution of social behavior I and II. J Theor Biol. 7:1-52.
20. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X. 2002. SPAGe Di: a versatile computer program to analyze spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes. 2:618-620.
21. Höglund J, Alatalo RV. 1995. Leks. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
22. Höglund J, Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Rintamäki PT, Lindell J. 1999. Microsatellite markers reveal the potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:813-816.
23. Hunter CP, Dwyer PD. 1997. The value of objects to satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Emu. 97:200-206.
24. Kokko H, Lindstrom J. 1996. Kin selection and the evolution of leks: whose success do young males maximize? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:919-923.
25. Komdeur J. 1994. The effect of kinship on helping in the cooperative breeding Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 256:47-52.
26. Krakauer AH. 2005. Kin selection and cooperative courtships in wild turkeys. Nature. 434:69-72.
27. Loiselle BA, Ryder TB, Duraes R, Tori W, Blake JG, Parker PG. 2006. Kin selection does not explain male aggregation at leks of 4 manakin species. Behav Ecol. 18:287-291.
28. Madden JR, Lowe TJ, Fuller HV, Coe RL, Dasmahapatra KK, Amos W, Jury F. 2004. Neighboring male spotted bowerbirds are not related, but do maraud each other. Anim Behav. 68:751-758.
29. Manning CJ, Wakeland EK, Potts WK. 1992. Communal nesting patterns in mice implicate MHC genes in kin recognition. Nature. 360:581-583.
30. Marshall AJ. 1954. Bower-birds: their displays and breeding cycles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
31. Martin CA, Alonso JC, Alonso J, Pitra C, Lieckfeldt D. 2002. Great bustard population structure in central Spain: concordant results from genetic analysis and dispersal study. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:119-125.
32. McDonald DB, Potts WK. 1994. Cooperative display and relatedness among males in a lek-mating bird. Science. 266:1030-1032.
33. Petrie M, Krupa A, Burke T. 1999. Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature. 401:155-157.
34. Pruett-Jones S, Pruett-Jones M. 1994. Sexual competition and courtship disruptions: why do male satin bowerbirds destroy each other's bowers? Anim Behav. 47:607-620.
35. Queller D, Goodnight KF. 1989. Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution. 43:258-275.
36. Raymond M, Rousset F. 1995. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population-genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered. 86:248-249.
37. Regnaut S, Christe P, Chapuisat M, Fumagalli L. 2006. Genotyping faeces reveals facultative kin association on capercaillie's leks. Conserv Gen. 7:665-674.
38. Reynolds SM, Dryer K, Bollback J, Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Robson T, Borgia G, Braun M. 2007. Behavioral paternity predicts genetic paternity in satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus), a species with a non-resource-based mating system. Auk. 124:857-867.
39. Saether S. 2002. Kin selection, female preferences and the evolution of leks: direct benefits may explain kin structuring. Anim Behav. 63:1017-1019.
40. Sefc KM, Payne RB, Sorenson MD. 2001. Characterization of microsatellite loci in village indigobirds (Vidua chalybeata) and cross-species amplification in estrildid and ploceid finches. Mol Ecol Notes. 1:252-254.
41. Shorey L, Piertney S, Stone J, Höglund J. 2000. Fine-scale genetic structuring on Manacus manacus leks. Nature. 408:352-353.
42. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
43. Stacey PB, Bock CE. 1978. Social plasticity in the acorn woodpecker. Science. 202:1298-1300.
44. Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Borgia G. 2001. Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Am Nat. 158:530-542.
45. Vellenga R. 1970. Behavior of the male satin bower-bird at the bower. Aust Bird Bander. 1:3-11.
46. West SA, Pen I, Griffin AS. 2002. Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science. 296:72-75.
47. Westcott DA. 1997. Neighbours, strangers and male-male aggression as a determinant of lek size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 40:235-242.