The red deer rut revisited: Female excursions but no evidence females move to mate with preferred males

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 808-818

  Stopher, Katie V ^a,b   Nussey, Daniel H ^a   Clutton Brock, Tim H ^c   Guinness, Fiona ^c   Morris, Alison ^a   Pemberton, Josephine M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervus elaphus; female choice; female movements; red deer; rut excursions; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; DEER; FEMALE; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; HAREM; MALE; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RUTTING; SEXUAL SELECTION;

CERVUS ELAPHUS; MAMMALIA;

EID: 79959475026     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr052     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Amos W, Wilmer JW, Fullard K, Burg TM, Croxall JP, Bloch D, Coulson T. 2001. The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 268:2021-2027. (Pubitemid 32964469)
2. Atkinson B. 2008. Kinship: mixed-effects Cox models, sparse matrices, and modeling data from large pedigrees. R package version 1.1.0-22.
3. Bartos L, Bahbouh R, Vach M. 2007. Repeatability of size and fluctu¬ating asymmetry of antler characteristics in red deer (Cervus elaphus) during ontogeny. Biol J Linn Soc. 91:215-226. (Pubitemid 47029871)
4. Beyer HL. 2004. Hawth's Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. [cited 2008 February 19]. Available from: http://www.spatialecology.com/htools.
5. Borger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T. 2006. Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol. 75: 1393-1405. (Pubitemid 44556461)
6. Brooks R, Kemp DJ. 2001. Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol Evol. 16:308-313. (Pubitemid 32706647)
7. Byers JA, Moodie JD, Hall N. 1994. Pronghorn females choose vigor¬ous mates. Anim Behav. 47:33-43.
8. Byers JA, Wiseman PA, Jones L, Roffe TJ. 2005. A large cost of female mate sampling in pronghorn. Am Nat. 166:661-668. (Pubitemid 41778881)
9. Calenge C. 2006. The package "adehabitat" for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model. 197:516-519. (Pubitemid 44108402)
10. Carranza J. 1995. Female attraction by males versus sites in territorial rutting red deer. Anim Behav. 50:445-453.
11. Carranza J, Pérez-González J, Mateos C, Fernández-Garćia JL. 2009. Parents' genetic dissimilarity and offspring sex in a polygynous mammal. Mol Ecol. 18:4964-4973.
12. Carranza J, Valencia. 1999. Red deer females collect on male clumps at mating areas. Behav Ecol. 10:525-532.
13. Charlton BD, McComb K, Reby D. 2008. Free-ranging red deer hinds show greater attentiveness to roars with formant frequencies typical of young males. Ethology. 114:1023-1031.
14. Charlton BD, Reby D, McComb K. 2007a. Female perception of size-related formant shifts in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav. 74:707-714. (Pubitemid 47538495)
15. Charlton BD, Reby D, McComb K. 2007b. Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biol Lett. 3:382-385.
16. Choudhury S. 1995. Divorce in birds: a review of the hypotheses. Anim Behav. 50:413-429.
17. Clutton-Brock TH. 1989. Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 235:339-372.
18. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE. 1979. Logical stag\adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus-Elaphus). Anim Behav. 27:211-225.
19. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD. 1982. Red deer: behaviour and ecology of two sexes. Edinburgh (UK): Edinburgh University Press.
20. Clutton-Brock TH, McAuliffe K. 2009. Female mate choice in mam¬mals. Q Rev Biol. 84:3-27.
21. Clutton-Brock TH, McComb K. 1993. Experimental tests of copying and mate choice in fallow deer (Dama-Dama). Behav Ecol. 4: 191-193. (Pubitemid 24409962)
22. Clutton-Brock TH, Price OF, MacColl ADC. 1992. Mate retention, harassment and the evolution of ungulate leks. Behav Ecol. 3: 234-242. (Pubitemid 23401853)
23. Clutton-Brock TH, Rose KE, Guinness FE. 1997. Density-related changes in sexual selection in red deer. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 264:1509-1516. (Pubitemid 27480708)
24. Coltman DW, Bancroft DR, Robertson A, Smith JA, Clutton-Brock TH, Pemberton JM. 1999. Male reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal: behavioural estimates compared with genetic paternity. Mol Ecol. 8:1199-1209. (Pubitemid 29373272)
25. Coulson TN, Pemberton JM, Albon SD, Beaumont M, Marshall TC, Slate J, Guinness FE, Clutton-Brock TH. 1998. Microsatellites reveal heterosis in red deer. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 265: 489-495. (Pubitemid 28140303)
26. Cox CR, Le Bouef BJ. 1977. Female incitation of male competition: a mechanism in sexual selection. Am Nat. 111:317-335.
27. Crawley MJ. 2007. The R Book. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
28. Dahle B, Swenson JE. 2003. Seasonal range size in relation to repro¬ductive strategies in brown bears Ursus arctos. J Anim Ecol. 72: 660-667. (Pubitemid 36872501)
29. Fisher DO, Lara MC. 1999. Effects of body size and home range on access to mates and paternity in male bridled nailtail wallabies. Anim Behav. 58:121-130. (Pubitemid 29337795)
30. Gibson RM, Guinness FE. 1980. Differential reproduction among red deer (Cervus elaphus) stags on Rhum. J Anim Ecol. 49: 199-208.
31. Guinness F, Lincoln GA, Short RV. 1971. Reproductive cycle of female red deer, Cervus-Elaphus L. J Reprod Fertil. 27:427.
32. Hadfield JD, Richardson DS, Burke T. 2006. Towards unbiased parent¬age assignment: combining, genetic, behavioural and spatial data in a Bayesian framework. Mol Ecol. 15:3175-3730.
33. Hansen TF, Price DK. 1995. Good genes and old age: do old mates provide superior genes? J Evol Biol. 8:759-778. (Pubitemid 3009706)
34. Hansson B, Westerberg L. 2002. On the correlation between hetero-zygosity and fitness in natural populations. Mol Ecol. 11:2467-2474. (Pubitemid 35436669)
35. Hoffman JI, Forcada J, Trathan PN, Amos W. 2007. Female fur seals show active choice for males that are heterozygous and unrelated. Nature. 445:912-914.
36. Hogg JT, Forbes SH. 1997. Mating in bighorn sheep: frequent male reproduction via a high-risk "unconventional" tactic. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 41:33-48. (Pubitemid 27309041)
37. Huck M, Davison J, Roper TJ. 2008. Comparison of two sampling protocols and four home range estimators using radio-tracking data from urban badgers. Wildl Biol. 14:467-477.
38. Hughes C. 1998. Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behaviour: a revolution results. Ecology. 79:383-399. (Pubitemid 28378719)
39. Hunt J, Brueker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ. 2009. Male-male compe¬tition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J Evol Biol. 22:13-26.
40. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 72:283-327. (Pubitemid 27207611)
41. Kenward RE, Clarke RT, Hodder KH, Walls SS. 2001. Density and linkage estimators of home range: nearest-neighbor clustering de¬fines multinuclear cores. Ecology. 82:1905-1920. (Pubitemid 32673791)
42. Kotiaho JS, Lebas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL. 2008. On female choice, heterozygosity and the lek paradox. Anim Behav. e1-e3. (Pubitemid 350298107)
43. Kruuk LEB, Slate J, Pemberton JM, Brotherstone S, Guinness F, Clutton-Brock TH. 2002. Antler size in red deer: heritability and selection but no evolution. Evolution. 56:1683-1695.
44. Labisky RF, Fritzen DE. 1998. Spatial mobility of breeding female white-tailed deer in a low-density population. J Wildl Manag. 62: 1329-1334. (Pubitemid 28501650)
45. Lovari S, Bartolommei P, Meschi F, Pezzo F. 2008. Going out to mate: excursion behaviour of female roe deer. Ethology. 114:886-896.
46. Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde J, Soler AJ, Gomendio M. 2005. Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 272:149-157.
47. Mays JHL, Hill GE. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:554-559. (Pubitemid 39234762)
48. McComb K, Clutton-Brock T. 1994. Is mate choice copying or aggre¬gation responsible for skewed distributions of females on leks? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 255:13-19.
49. McComb KE. 1991. Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus-Elaphus. Anim Behav. 41:79-88.
50. Moyes K. 2007. Demographic consequences of individual variation. [PhD]. Canterbury (UK): University of Kent.
51. Moyes K, Nussey D, Clements M, Guinness F, Morris A, Morris S, Pemberton J, Kruuk L, Clutton-Brock T. 2011. Advancing breeding phenology in response to environmental change in a wild red deer population. Glob. Change Biol. Early View.
52. Neff BD, Pitcher TE. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol. 14:19-38. (Pubitemid 40141473)
53. Nussey DH, Kruuk LEB, Morris A, Clements MN, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH. 2009. Inter-and intrasexual variation in aging patterns across reproductive traits in a wild red deer population. Am Nat. 174:342-357.
54. Payne RW, Murray DA, Harding SA, Baird DB, Soutar DM. 2009. GenStat for windows (12th Edition) introduction. Hemel Hemp-stead (UK): VSN International.
55. Pemberton JM, Albon SD, Guinness FE, Clutton-Brock TH, Dover GA. 1992. Behavioural estimates of male mating success tested by DNA fingerprinting in a polygynous mammal. Behav Ecol. 3:66-75. (Pubitemid 23398883)
56. Poole JH. 1989. Mate guarding, reproductive success and female choice in African elephants. Anim Behav. 37:842-849. (Pubitemid 20417903)
57. Qvarnstrom A, Forsgren E. 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol. 13:498-501. (Pubitemid 28547329)
58. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; [cited 2009 January 21]. Available from: http://www.R-project.org.
59. Reby D, Charlton BD, Locatelli Y, McComb K. 2010. Oestrus red deer hinds prefer male roars with higher fundamental frequencies. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 277:2747-2753.
60. Reby D, Hewison M, Izquierdo M, Pepin D. 2001. Red deer (Cervus elaphus) hinds discriminate between the roars of their current harem-holder stag and those of neighbouring stags. Ethology. 107:951-959. (Pubitemid 32974476)
61. Reby D, McComb K. 2003. Anatomical constraints generate honesty: acoustic cues to age and weight in the roars of red deer stags. Anim Behav. 65:519-530. (Pubitemid 36524207)
62. Reichard M, Smith C, Jordan WC. 2004. Genetic evidence reveals density-dependent mediated success of alternative mating behav¬iours in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Mol Ecol. 13:1569-1578. (Pubitemid 38688906)
63. Relyea RA, Demarais S. 1994. Activity of desert mule deer during the breeding-season. J Mammal. 75:940-949. (Pubitemid 26448336)
64. Richard E, Morellet N, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Vanpe C, Hewison AJM. 2008. Ranging behaviour and excursions of female roe deer during the rut. Behav Processes. 79:28-35.
65. San Jose C, Lovari S. 1998. Ranging movements of female roe deer: do home-loving does roam to mate? Ethology. 104:721-728. (Pubitemid 28445587)
66. Seaman DE, Powell RA. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology. 77:2075-2085.
67. Sundaresan SR, Fischhoff IR, Rubenstein DI. 2007. Male harassment influences female movements and associations in Grevy's zebra (Equus grevyi). Behav Ecol. 18:860-865. (Pubitemid 47357652)
68. Travis SE, Slobodchikoff CN, Keim P. 1995. Ecological and demo¬graphic effects on intraspecific variation in the social system of prairie dogs. Ecology. 76:1794-1803. (Pubitemid 26447234)
69. Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Chicago (IL): Aldine-Atherton. p. 136-179.
70. Twiss SD, Poland VF, Graves JA, Pomeroy PP. 2006. Finding fathers: spatio-temporal analysis of paternity assignment in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus). Mol Ecol. 15:1939-1953.
71. Twiss SD, Thomas C, Poland V, Graves JA, Pomeroy P. 2007. The impact of climatic variation on the opportunity for sexual selection. Biol Lett. 3:12-15.
72. Walling CA, Pemberton J, Hadfield JD, Kruuk LEB. 2010. Comparing parentage inference software: re-analysis of a red deer pedigree. Mol Ecol. 19:1914-1928.
73. Wang J, Santure AW. 2009. Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics. 181:579-1594.
74. Wolff JO. 1998. Breeding strategies, mate choice, and reproductive success in American bison. Oikos. 83:529-544. (Pubitemid 29072995)
75. Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev. 80:559-571. (Pubitemid 43381260)
76. Worthington Wilmer J, Allen PJ, Pomeroy PP, Twiss SD, Amos W. 1999. Where have all the fathers gone? An extensive microsatellite analysis of paternity in the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus). Mol Ecol. 8: 1417-1429. (Pubitemid 29514549)
77. Worthington Wilmer J, Overall AJ, Pomeroy PP, Twiss SD, Amos W. 2001. Patterns of paternal relatedness in British grey seal colonies. Mol Ecol. 9:283-292.
78. Worton BJ. 1987. A review of models of home range for animal move¬ment. Ecol Model. 38:277-298.
79. Worton BJ. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distri¬bution in home-range studies. Ecology. 70:164-168. (Pubitemid 20418153)