Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 367–372

Correlates of male mating success in the ruff Philomachus pugnax, a lekking shorebird

  • Wendy L. Hill
Article

Summary

Male ruffs (Philomachus pugnax), a lekking shorebird, can generally be divided into two morphs according to behavior and plumage coloration. Predominantly dark-colored, “independent” male ruffs defend small territories on a lek, whereas lighter colored “satellite” males are non-territorial and less site-faithful to a particular lek. The traits associated with the mating success of independent male ruffs were studied at two leks during two seasons on the island of Öland, Sweden in May and June of 1985 and 1987. Using multivariate analyses, three characteristics were found to be significantly related to mating success: high frequency of visits by satellites to an independent male's residence, consistency of lek attendance, and low rates of aggressive behavior. In contrast, mating success was unrelated to the degree of darkness of the independent male nuptial plumage, territory location on the lek, or rate of courtship displays. The use of multivariate analyses helped to resolve conflicting conclusions from previous studies which employed simple statistical analyses, or none at all. Experimental manipulations are suggested which will help to further determine the influence of female mate choice in this lekking system.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour. Behaviour 49:227–267Google Scholar
  2. Andersen FS (1951) Contributions to the biology of the ruff (Philomachus pugnax (L.)). III. Dansk Orn Foren Tidsskr 45:145–173Google Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–816Google Scholar
  4. Andersson S (1989) Sexual selection and cues for female choice in leks of Jackson's widowbird Euplectes jacksoni. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:403–410Google Scholar
  5. Apollonio M, Festa-Bianchet M, Mari F (1989) Correlates of copulatory success in a fallow deer lek. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:89–97Google Scholar
  6. Bateson PPG (1983) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (1987) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradbury JW, Gibson RM (1983) Leks and mate choice. In: Bateson PPG (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–138Google Scholar
  9. Castro G (1987) High metabolic rate in sanderlings (Calidris alba). Wilson Bull 99:267–268Google Scholar
  10. Gibson R (1987) Bivariate versus multivariate analyses of sexual selection in red deer. Anim Behav 35:292–305Google Scholar
  11. Gibson RM (1989) Field playback of male display attracts females in lek breeding sage grouse. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:439–443Google Scholar
  12. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW (1985) Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:117–123Google Scholar
  13. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW (1986) Male and female mating strategies on sage grouse leks. In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution: birds and mammals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 379–398Google Scholar
  14. Halliday TR (1987) Physiological constraints on sexual selection. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, New York, pp 265–277Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387Google Scholar
  16. Hasson O (1989) Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proc R Soc Lend [Biol] 235:383–406Google Scholar
  17. Heisler L, Andersson MB, Arnold SJ, Boake CR, Borgia G, Hausfater G, Kirkpatrick M, Lande R, Maynard Smith J, O'Donald P, Thornhill AR, Weissing FJ (1987) The evolution of mating preferences and sexually selected traits. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, New York, pp 96–118Google Scholar
  18. Hogan-Warburg AJ (1966) Social behavior of the ruff Philomachus pugnax (L.). Ardea 54:109–229Google Scholar
  19. Höglund J, Lundberg A (1987) Sexual selection in a monomorphic lek-breeding bird: correlates of male mating success in the great snipe Gallinago media. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:211–216Google Scholar
  20. Hoglund J, Lundberg A (1989) Plumage color correlates with body size in the ruff (Philomachus pugnax). Auk 106:336–338Google Scholar
  21. Kersten M, Piersma T (1987) High levels of energy expenditure in shore birds; metabolic adaptations to an energetically expensive way of life. Ardea 75:175–187Google Scholar
  22. Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12Google Scholar
  23. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by natural selection. Am Nat 124:309–323Google Scholar
  24. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725Google Scholar
  25. Lank DB, Smith CM (1987) Conditional lekking in ruff (Philomachus pugnax). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:137–145Google Scholar
  26. Matthiu PA, Johnson OW, Johnson PM, Whittow GC (1989) Basal metabolic rate of Pacific golden-plovers. Wilson Bull 101:652–654Google Scholar
  27. McDonald DP (1989) Correlates of male mating success in a lekking bird with male-male cooperation. Anim Behav 37:1007–1022Google Scholar
  28. O'Donald P (1980) Genetic models of sexual selection. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Oring LW (1982) Avian mating systems. In: Farner D, King J, Parkes K (eds) Avian biology, vol 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–92Google Scholar
  30. Petterson J, Persson O, Hjort C (1986) Vadarpopulationerna vid Ottenby — status 1986 saint jämförelse med inventeringarna 1965–1979. Rapp Ottenby Fågelstn 9:1–52Google Scholar
  31. Pitelka FA, Holmes RT, Maclean SF (1974) Ecology and evolution of social organization in arctic sandpipers. Am Zool 14:185–204Google Scholar
  32. Pruett-Jones SG (1988) Lekking versus solitary display: temporal variations in dispersion in the buff-breasted sandpiper. Anim Behav 36:1740–1752Google Scholar
  33. Pruett-Jones SG, Pruett-Jones MA, Jones HI (1990) Parasites and sexual selection in birds of paradise. Am Zool 30:287–298Google Scholar
  34. Robertson JGM (1986) Female choice, male strategies, and the role of vocalizations in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:773–784Google Scholar
  35. Ryan MJ (1985) The Túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. Univeristy of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Selous E (1906–1907) Observations tending to throw light on the question of sexual selection in birds; including a day-to-day diary on the breeding habits of the ruff (Machetes pugnax). Zoology 10:201–219, 285–294, 419–428; 11:60–65, 161–182, 367–381Google Scholar
  37. Shepard JM (1975) Factors influencing female choice in the lek mating system of the ruff. Living Bird 87–111Google Scholar
  38. Smithe FB (1975) Naturalist's color guide. American Museum of Natural History, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Sokal RB, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  40. Trail PW, Adams ES (1989) Active mate choice at cock-of-the-rock leks: tactics of sampling and comparison. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:283–292Google Scholar
  41. van Rhijn JG (1973) Behavioural dimorphism in male ruffs, Philomachus pugnax (L.). Behaviour 47:153–229Google Scholar
  42. van Rhijn JG (1983) On the maintenance and origin of alternative strategies in the ruff Philomachus pugnax. Behaviour 125:482–498Google Scholar
  43. Whitfield DP (1986) Plumage variability and territoriality in breeding turnstone Arenaria interpres: status signalling or individual recognition? Anim Behav 35:1471–1482Google Scholar
  44. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J Theor Bio 53:205–214[⋏]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy L. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations