Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 30, Issue 3–4, pp 165–176 | Cite as

Competition for a mate restricts mate search of female pied flycatchers

  • Svein Dale
  • Helge Rinden
  • Tore Slagsvold
Article

Summary

We studied the mate sampling behaviour of female pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca, in a 40-ha area containing 10–12 unmated males whose nestboxes were monitored with videocameras. The main results were: (1) The females undertook a restricted mate search. The females that mated in the area during three monitoring periods (n = 20, 12 females released by us and 8 females that arrived naturally) sampled 1–10 males (median 4.5). This was about 40% of the available mating options. (2) Search costs in terms of time and energy were low. The search period was short (median 5.1 h) and only a small proportion of the search period was spent at the nestboxes of males (median 4%). The females visited up to seven different males in 1 h, and the time elapsing between visits to different males was short (median 13 min). The minimum distance travelled during the search was also short (median 1.4 km). (3) There was competition between the females. We recorded seven cases of two females visiting the same male at the same time, including at least one case involving physical fighting. (4) Females that experienced a high level of competition had a more restricted mate search than females that experienced a low level of competition. (5) The search pattern of most of the females did not conform to the best-of-n-males rule nor to the threshold criterion rule, because they made repeated visits to many of the males sampled.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A (1984) Polyterritorial polygyny in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca — evidence for the deception hypothesis. Ann Zool Fennici 21:217–228Google Scholar
  2. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A (1990) Polyterritorial polygyny in the pied flycatcher. Adv Study Behav 19:1–27Google Scholar
  3. Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Lundberg A (1988) The search cost in mate choice of the pied flycatcher. Anim Behav 36:289–291Google Scholar
  4. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Glynn C (1986) Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature 323:152–153Google Scholar
  5. Arak A (1988) Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: active choice or passive attraction? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:317–327Google Scholar
  6. Borgia G, Pruett-Jones SG, Pruett-Jones MA (1985) The evolution of bower-building and the assessment of male quality. Z Tierpsychol 67:225–236Google Scholar
  7. Brown L, Downhower JF (1983) Constraints on female choice in the mottled sculpin. In: Wasser SK (ed) Social behaviour of female vertebrates. Academic Press, London, pp 39–54Google Scholar
  8. Dale S, Slagsvold T (1990) Random settlement of female pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca: significance of male territory size. Anim Behav 39:231–243Google Scholar
  9. Dale S, Amundsen T, Lifjeld JT, Slagsvold T (1990) Mate sampling behaviour of female pied flycatchers: evidence for active mate choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:87–91Google Scholar
  10. Daly M (1978) The cost of mating. Am Nat 112:771–774Google Scholar
  11. Davies NB (1978) Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): the resident always wins. Anim Behav 26:138–147Google Scholar
  12. 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. Bird and mammals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 379–398Google Scholar
  13. Gronell AM (1989) Visiting behaviour by females of the sexually dichromatic damselfish, Chrysiptera cyanea (Teleostei: Pomacentridae): a probable method of assessing male quality. Ethology 81:89–122Google Scholar
  14. Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107–112Google Scholar
  15. Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defence in the great tit (Parus major): do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:185–194Google Scholar
  16. Kruijt JP, Hogan JA (1967) Social behaviour on the lek in black grouse, Lyrurus tetrix tetrix (L.). Ardea 55:203–240Google Scholar
  17. Lifjeld JT, Slagsvold T (1986) The function of courtship feeding during incubation in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 34:1441–1453Google Scholar
  18. Lightbody JP, Weatherhead PJ (1987) Polygyny in the yellow-headed blackbird: female choice versus male competition. Anim Behav 35:1670–1684Google Scholar
  19. Lill A (1974) Sexual behaviour of the lek-forming white-bearded manakin (Manacus manacus trinitatis Hartert). Z Tierpsychol 36:1–36Google Scholar
  20. Lill A (1976) Lek behaviour in the golden-headed manakin Pipra erythrocephala, in Trinidad (West Indies). Z Tierpsychol Beih 18:1–83Google Scholar
  21. Moore AJ (1989) The behavioural ecology of Libellula luctuosa (Burmeister) (Odonata: Libellulidae): III. Male density, OSR, and male and female mating behaviour. Behaviour 80:120–136Google Scholar
  22. Moore AJ, Moore PJ (1988) Female strategy during mate choice: threshold assessment. Evolution 42:387–391Google Scholar
  23. O'Donald P (1980) Genetic models of sexual selection. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Parker GA (1983) Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 141–166Google Scholar
  25. Payne RB, Payne K (1977) Social organization and mating success in local song populations of village indigobirds, Vidula chalybeata. Z Tierpsychol 45:113–173Google Scholar
  26. Petrie M, Halliday T, Sanders C (1991) Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim Behav 41:323–331Google Scholar
  27. Pomiankowski A (1987) The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol 128:195–218Google Scholar
  28. Pruett-Jones SG, Pruett-Jones MA (1990) Sexual selection through female choice in Lawes' parotia, a lek-mating bird of paradise. Evolution 44:486–501Google Scholar
  29. Real L (1990) Search theory and mate choice. 1. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136:376–404Google Scholar
  30. Reynolds JD, Gross MR (1990) Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230–243Google Scholar
  31. Slagsvold T (1986) Nest site settlement by the pied flycatcher: does the female choose her mate for the quality of his house or himself? Ornis Scand 17:210–220Google Scholar
  32. Slagsvold T, Dale S (1991) Male choice models: can cost of searching and cost of courtship explain mating patterns of female pied flycatchers? Ornis Scand 22:319–326Google Scholar
  33. Slagsvold T, Lifjeld JT (1990) Return rates of male pied flycatchers: an experimental study manipulating breeding success. In: Blondel J, Gosler A, Lebreton JD, McCleery R (eds) Population biology of passerine birds. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 441–452Google Scholar
  34. Slagsvold T, Lifjeld JT, Stenmark G, Breiehagen T (1988) On the cost of searching for a mate in female pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 36:433–443Google Scholar
  35. Sternberg H (1989) Pied flycatcher. In: Newton I (ed) Lifetime reproduction in birds. Academic Press, London, pp 55–74Google Scholar
  36. Trail PW (1985) Courtship disruption modifies mate choice in a lek-breeding bird. Science 227:778–780Google Scholar
  37. Trail PW (1990) Why should lek-breeders be monomorphic? Evolution 44:1837–1852Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Wade MJ, Pruett-Jones SG (1990) Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:5749–5753Google Scholar
  40. Wing SR (1988) Cost of mating for female insects: risk of predation in Photinus collustrans (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Am Nat 131:139–142Google Scholar
  41. Wittenberger JF (1983) Tactics of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 435–447Google Scholar
  42. Wootton JT, Bollinger EK, Hibbard CJ (1986) Mating systems in homogeneous habitats: the effect of female uncertainty, knowledge costs, and random settlement. Am Nat 128:499–512Google Scholar
  43. Zuk M, Johnson K, Thornhill R, Ligon JD (1990) Mechanisms of female choice in red jungle fowl. Evolution 44:477–485Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svein Dale
    • 1
  • Helge Rinden
    • 1
  • Tore Slagsvold
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Zoology, Department of BiologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations