Tactical allocation of effort among multiple signals in sage grouse: An experiment with a robotic female

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 97-106

  Patricelli, Gail L ^a   Krakauer, Alan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic localization; Communication; Greater sage grouse; Multiple traits; Plasticity; Sexual selection; Trade off

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BIOACOUSTICS; COURTSHIP; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GAMEBIRD; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATING SUCCESS; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL; TRADE-OFF; WILD POPULATION;

AVES; CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS;

EID: 72649093720     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp155     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Badyaev AV, Etges WJ, Faust JD, Martin TE. 1998. Fitness correlates of spur length and spur asymmetry in male wild turkeys. J Anim Ecol. 67:845-852.
2. Ballentine B, Hyman J, Nowicki S. 2004. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behav Ecol. 15:163-168.
3. Bertram SM, Warren PS. 2005. Trade-offs in signalling components differ with signalling effort. Anim Behav. 70:477-484.
4. Boyce MS. 1990. The red queen visits sage grouse leks. Am Zool. 30:263-270.
5. Byrne PG. 2008. Strategic male calling behavior in an Australian terrestrial toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii). Copeia. 1:57-63.
6. Cardoso GC, Atwell JW, Ketterson ED, Price TD. 2009. Song types, song performance, and the use of repertoires in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol. 20:901-907.
7. Christie P, Mennill D, Ratcliffe L. 2004. Pitch shifts and song structure indicate male quality in the dawn chorus of black-capped chickadees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 55:341-348.
8. Clark CW, Ellison WT. 2000. Calibration and comparison of the acoustic location methods used during the spring migration of the bow-head whale, Balaena mysticetus, off Pt. Barrow, Alaska, 1984-1993. J Acoust Soc Am. 107:3509-3517.
9. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon S, Gibson R, Guinness F. 1979. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer. Anim Behav. 27: 211-225.
10. Coleman SW, Patricelli GL, Borgia G. 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature. 428:742-745.
11. Collins SA. 1994. Male displays-a cause or effect of female preference. Anim Behav. 48:371-375.
12. Cooper WE. 1999. Tradeoffs between courtship, fighting, and antipre-datory behavior by a lizard, Eumeces laticeps. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 47:54-59.
13. Cramer ERA, Price JJ. 2007. Red-winged blackbirds Ageliaus phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels. J Avian Biol. 38:122-127.
14. Dantzker MS, Deane GB, Bradbury JW. 1999. Directional acoustic radiation in the strut display of male sage grouse Centrocercus uro-phasianus. J Exp Biol. 202:2893-2909.
15. Dobson FS, Risch TS, Murie JO. 1999. Increasing returns in the life history of Columbian ground squirrels. J Anim Ecol. 68:73-86.
16. Endler JA. 1987. Predation, light intensity and courtship behavior in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav. 35:1376-1385.
17. Gerhardt HC. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav. 42:615-635.
18. Gibson RM. 1990. Relationships between blood parasites, mating success and phenotypic cues in male sage grouse Centrocercus-Urophasianus. Am Zool. 30:271-278.
19. Gibson RM. 1996. Female choice in sage grouse: the roles of attraction and active comparison. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 39:55-59.
20. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW. 1985. Sexual selection in lekking grouse: phenotypic correlates of male strutting success. Behav Ecol Socio-biol. 18:117-123.
21. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1991. Mate choice in lek-king sage grouse revisited: the roles of vocal display, female site fidelity, and copying. Behav Ecol. 2:165-180.
22. Grafen A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 144: 517-546.
23. Hartzler JE. 1972. An analysis of sage grouse lek behavior. (PhD Dissertation). Missoula (MT): University of Montana.
24. Hasson O. 1989. Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 235: 383-406.
25. Hebets EA, Papaj DR. 2005. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 57: 197-214.
26. How MJ, Hemmi JM, Zeil J, Peters R. 2008. Claw waving display changes with receiver distance in fiddler crabs, Uca perplexa. Anim Behav. 75:1015-1022.
27. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc Lond B. 273:1907-1912.
28. Janicke T, Hahn S, Ritz MS, Peter H-U. 2008. Vocal performance reflects individual quality in a nonpasserine. Anim Behav. 75:91-98.
29. Kelso EC, Verrell PA. 2002. Do male veiled chameleons, Chamaeleo calyptratus, adjust their courtship displays in response to female reproductive status? Ethology. 108:495-512.
30. King AP, West MJ. 1983. Epigenesis of cowbird song: a joint endeavor of males and females. Nature. 305:704-706.
31. Knops JMH, Koenig WD, Carmen WJ. 2007. Negative correlation does not imply a tradeoff between growth and reproduction in California oaks. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 104:16982-16985.
32. Koga T, Backwell PRY, Christy JH, Murai M, Kasuya E. 2001. Male-biased predation of a fiddler crab. Anim Behav. 62:201-207.
33. Koolhaas JM, Korte SM, De Boer SF, Van Der Vegt BJ, Van Reenen CG, Hopster H, De Jong IC, Ruis MAW, Blokhuis HJ. 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuro-sci Biobehav Rev. 23:925-935.
34. Kroodsma DE. 1986. Design of playback experiments. Auk. 103: 640-642.
35. Lambrechts M, Dhondt AA. 1988. The anti-exhaustion hypothesis: a new hypothesis to explain song performance and song switching in the great tit. Anim Behav. 36:327-334.
36. Langemann U, Tavares JP, Peake TM, McGregor PK. 2000. Response of great tits to escalating patterns of playback. Behaviour. 137: 451-471.
37. McGregor PK, Catchpole CK, Dabelsteen T, Falls JB, Fusani L, Ger-hardt HC, Gilbert F, Horn AG, Klump GM, Kroodsma DE, et al. 1992. Design of playback experiments: the Thornbridge Hall NATO ARW Consensus. In: McGregor PK, editor. Playback and studies of animal communication. New York: Plenum Press. p. 1-9.
38. Mennill DJ, Burt JM, Fristrup KM, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Accuracy of an acoustic location system for monitoring the position of duetting songbirds in tropical forest. J Acoust Soc Am. 119: 2832-2839.
39. Møller AP, Pomiankowski AN. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:167-176.
40. Nooker J, Sandercock B. 2008. Phenotypic correlates and survival consequences of male mating success in lek-mating greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62: 1377-1388.
41. Parker GA. 1974. Courtship persistence and female-guarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour. 48:157-183.
42. Patricelli GL. 2002. Interactive signaling during courtship in satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). (Doctoral dissertation). College Park (MD): University of Maryland.
43. Patricelli GL, Coleman SW, Borgia G. 2006. Male satin bowerbirds, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus, adjust their display intensity in response to female startling: an experiment with robotic females. Anim Behav. 71:49-59.
44. Patricelli GL, Uy JAC, Borgia G. 2003. Multiple male traits interact: attractive bower decorations facilitate attractive behavioral displays in satin bowerbirds. Proc R Soc Ser B. 270:2389-2395.
45. Patricelli GL, Uy JAC, Walsh G, Borgia G. 2002. Sexual selection: male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature. 415:279-280.
46. Payne RJH, Pagel M. 1996. When is false modesty a false economy? An optimality model of escalating signals. Proc R Soc Ser B. 263: 1545-1550.
47. Payne RJH, Pagel MD. 1997. Why do animals repeat displays? Anim Behav. 54:109-119.
48. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution. 51:537-551.
49. Podos J. 2001. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signature in Darwin's finches. Nature. 409:185-188.
50. Podos J, Huber SK, Taft B. 2004. Bird Song: the interface of evolution and mechanism. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Sys. 35:55-87.
51. Price JJ, Earnshaw SM, Webster MS. 2006. Montezuma oropendolas modify a component of song constrained by body size during vocal contests. Anim Behav. 71:799-807.
52. Pryke SR, Lawes MJ, Andersson S. 2001. Agonistic carotenoid signalling in male red-collared widowbirds: aggression related to the colour signal of both the territory owner and model intruder. Anim Behav. 62:695-704.
53. Quinn GP, Keough MJ. 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
54. Ryan MJ. 1988. Energy, calling, and selection. Am Zool. 28:885-898.
55. Semple K, Wayne RK, Gibson RM. 2001. Microsatellite analysis of female mating behaviour in lek-breeding sage grouse. Mol Ecol. 10:2043-2048.
56. Sih A, Bell AM. 2008. Insights for behavioral ecology from behavioral syndromes. Advances in the study of behavior.. Vol.38. San Diego (CA): Elsevier Academic Press Inc. p. 227-281.
57. Singal SP. 2005. Noise pollution and control strategy. Oxford: Alha Science International.
58. Sockman KW, Sewall KB, Ball GF, Hahn TP. 2006. Economy of mate attraction in the Cassin's finch. Biol Lett. 1:34-37.
59. Spiesberger JL, Fristrup KM. 1990. Passive localization of calling animals and sensing of their acoustic environment using acoustic tomography. Am Nat. 135:107-153.
60. Stearns S. 1992. The evolution of life histories. New York: Oxford University Press.
61. Taigen T, Wells K. 1985. Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B. 155:163-170.
62. Thornhill R, Moller AP. 1998. The relative importance of size and asymmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol. 9:546-551.
63. Trainer JM, McDonald DB, Learn WA. 2002. The development of coordinated singing in cooperatively displaying long-tailed mana-kins. Behav Ecol. 13:65-69.
64. Van Noordwijk AJ, Dejong G. 1986. Acquisition and allocation of resources-their influence on variation in life-history tactics. Am Nat. 128:137-142.
65. Vehrencamp SL, Bradbury JW, Gibson RM. 1989. The energetic cost of display in male sage grouse. Anim Behav. 38:885-896.
66. Webb B. 2000. What does robotics offer animal behaviour? Anim Behav. 60:545-558.
67. Wells KD, Taigen TL. 1986. The effect of social interactions on calling energetics in the gray treefrog (Hyla, versicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:9-18.
68. Westcott DA. 1997. Neighbours, strangers and male-male aggression as a determinant of lek size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 40: 235-242.
69. Wiley RH. 1973a. The strut display of male sage grouse: a 'fixed' action pattern. Behaviour. 47:129-152.
70. Wiley RH. 1973b. Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Anim Behav Monogr. 6:85-169.
71. Wiley RH. 2006. Signal detection and animal communication. Adv Study Behav. 36:217-247.