Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 253–261 | Cite as

Female mate choice in the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca

  • Rauno V. Alatalo
  • Arne Lundberg
  • Karin Ståhlbrandt
Article

Summary

We have examined male and territorial factors which might influence female mate choice in the Pied Flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca). Mating success of males was largely determined by the order of arrival on the breeding grounds. Females actively selected those males that had been longest in the area. This is likely to be due to territorial cues, early males having the best territories. About 15% of the males become polygynous, and these are the males that arrived earliest.

Male age was relatively unimportant for breeding success, but because old males tend to arrive earlier than yearlings, most polygynous males were old. On average, old males are somewhat darker than young males, but male colour also varies within males of the same age. Polygynous and monogamous males did not differ significantly in colour, and female breeding success was not correlated with the colour of their mates. We show theoretically that it does not pay for females to select young males to avoid polygyny unless polygyny frequency or the number of reliable monogamous males almost double. Hence our hypothesis of polygyny-by-deceit in the Pied Flycatcher remains realistic. Because of male polyterritoriality, females are unaware of the males' status when mating.

Keywords

Mate Choice Young Male Female Mate Mating Success Breeding Success 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Lundberg A, Ulfstrand S (1981) The conflict between male polygamy and female monogamy: the case of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Am Nat 117:738–753Google Scholar
  2. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Ståhlbrandt K (1982) Why do Pied Flycatcher females mate with already-mated males? Anim Behav 30:585–593Google Scholar
  3. Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Lundberg A, Ulfstrand S (1984a) Male deception or female choice in the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca: a reply. Am Nat (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Alatalo RV, Gustafsson L, Lundberg A (1984b) High frequency of cuckoldry in pied and collared flycatchers. Oikos (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820Google Scholar
  6. Askenmo C (1977) Some aspects on the reproduction strategy of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca (Pallas). Ph D Dissertation, University of GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Boag PT (1983) The heritability of external morphology in Darwin's ground finches (Geospiza) on Isla Daphne Major, Galapagos. Evolution 37:877–894Google Scholar
  8. Curio E (1959) Verhaltensstudien am Trauerschnäpper. Tierpsychol (Suppl) 3:1–118Google Scholar
  9. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Freeman, Oxford San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  10. Drost R (1936) Über das Brutkleid männlicher Trauenfliegenfänger, Muscicapa hypoleuca. Vogelzug 6:179–186Google Scholar
  11. Garnett MC (1981) Body size, its heritability and influence on juvenile survival among great tits, Parus major. Ibis 123:31–41Google Scholar
  12. Haartman L von (1949) Der Trauenfliegerschnäpper. I. Ortstreue und Rassenbildung. Acta Zool Fenn 56:1–104Google Scholar
  13. Haartman L von (1951) Successive polygamy. Behaviour 3:256–274Google Scholar
  14. Haartman L von (1956) Territory in the Pied Flycatcher, Muscicapa hypoleuca. Ibis 98:460–475Google Scholar
  15. Järvi T, Röskaft E, Slagsvold T (1982) The conflict between male polygamy and female monogamy: some aspects on the “cheating hypothesis”. Am Nat 120:689–691Google Scholar
  16. Lundberg A, Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Ulfstrand S (1981) Biometry, habitat distribution and breeding success in the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Ornis Scand 12:68–79Google Scholar
  17. Orians GH (1979) On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am Nat 103:589–603Google Scholar
  18. Payne RB (1982) Ecological consequences of song-matching: breeding success and intraspecific song mimicry in Indigo Buntings. Ecology 63:401–411Google Scholar
  19. Searcy WA (1979) Female choice of mates: a general model for birds and its application to Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Am Nat 114:77–100Google Scholar
  20. Svensson L (1975) Identification guide to european passerines. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  21. Verner J (1964) Evolution of polygamy in the long-billed marsh wren. Evolution 18:252–261Google Scholar
  22. Verner J, Willson MF (1966) The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47:143–147Google Scholar
  23. Winkel W, Richter D, Berndt R (1970) Über Beziehungen zwischen Farbtyp und Lebensalter männlicher Trauerschnäpper (Ficedula hypoleuca). Vogelwelt 91:161–170Google Scholar
  24. Wittenberger JF (1979) The evolution of mating systems in bird and mammals. In: Marler P, Vandenbergh JG (eds) Social behaviour and communication. Plenum Press, New York (Handbook of behavioural neurobiology, vol 3, pp 271–349)Google Scholar
  25. Yasukawa K (1981) Male quality and female choice of mate in the Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoenicus). Ecology 62:922–929Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rauno V. Alatalo
    • 1
  • Arne Lundberg
    • 1
  • Karin Ståhlbrandt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations