Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 369–375 | Cite as

Competition for territories in red-winged blackbirds: Is resource-holding potential realized?

  • Christopher G. Eckert
  • Patrick J. Weatherhead


In resource-defence mating systems we intutively expect that the most competitive males should win the best resources so that, in territorial species, male quality and territory quality will be highly correlated. In the “polygyny threshold model” (PTM) of mate choice this expectation has become an assumption. We performed a removal experiment using red-winged blackbirds to test the validity of this assumption. On the basis of two morphological and two behavioral indices of competitive ability we found only weak correlation between male competitive ability and territory quality. Factors potentially contributing to this result include habitat quality perception, site dominance, and site fidelity. However, both our experimental design and measurement of male competitive ability may have caused us to underestimate the real correlation between male quality and territory quality. Nevertheless, our results suggest that male quality is not perfectly correlated with territory quality as is assumed in the PTM. Therefore, male quality and territory quality should be treated independently when modelling mate choice in this and other territorial species.


Habitat Quality Mate Choice Threshold Model Site Fidelity Quality Perception 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aspey WP, Blankenship JE (1977) Spiders and snails and statistical tales: application of multivariate analysis to diverse ethological data. In: Hazlett BA (ed) Quantitative methods in the study of animal behaviour. Academic Press, NY, pp 75–120Google Scholar
  2. Eckert CG, Weatherhead PJ (1987a) Male characteristics, parental quality and the study of mate choice in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:35–42Google Scholar
  3. Eckert CG, Weatherhead PJ (1987b) Ideal dominance distributions: a test using red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:43–52Google Scholar
  4. Eckert CG, Weatherhead PJ (1987c) Owners, floaters and competitive asymmetries among territorial red-winged blackbirds. Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenwood H, Weatherhead PJ (1982) Spring roosting dynamics of red-winged blackbirds: biological and management implications. Can J Zool 60:750–753Google Scholar
  7. Hansen AJ, Rohwer S (1986) Coverable badges and resource defence in birds. Anim Behav 34:69–76Google Scholar
  8. Heisterberg JF, Knittle CE, Bray OE, Mott DF, Besser JF (1984) Movements of radio-instrumented blackbirds and European starlings among winter roosts. J Wildl Manage 48:203–209Google Scholar
  9. Holm CH (1973) Breeding sex ratios and reproductive success in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology 54:356–365Google Scholar
  10. James FC (1970) Geographic size variation in birds and its relationship to climate. Ecology 51:365–390Google Scholar
  11. Krebs JR (1971) Territory and breeding density in the great tit, Parus major L. Ecology 52:2–22Google Scholar
  12. Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defence in the great tit, Parus major: do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:185–194Google Scholar
  13. Lenington S (1980) Female choice and polygyny in red-winged blackbirds. Anim Behav 28:347–361Google Scholar
  14. Lenington S (1983) Commentary. In: Brush AH, Clark GA Jr (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 85–91Google Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175Google Scholar
  16. Muldal AM, Moffat JD, Robertson RJ (1986) Parental care of nestlings by male red-winged blackbirds, Agelaius phoeniceus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:105–114Google Scholar
  17. Orians GH (1961) The ecology of blackbird (Agelaius) social systems. Ecol Monogr 31:285–312Google Scholar
  18. Orians GH (1969) On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am Nat 103:285–312Google Scholar
  19. Orians GH (1980) Some adaptations of marsh-nesting blackbirds. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Orians GH, Christman GM (1968) A comparative study of the behavior of the red-winged, tricolored and yellowheaded blackbirds. Univ Calif Publ Zool 84Google Scholar
  21. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243Google Scholar
  22. Patterson LB (1979) Relative parental investment in the red-winged blackbird. Unpubl. Ph D diss. Indiana University, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Payne RB (1979) Sexual selection and intersexual differences in variance in bredding success. Am Nat 114:447–452Google Scholar
  24. Picman J (1987) Territoriality in red-winged blackbirds: territory establishment, size and tenacity by males. Auk (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Robertson RJ (1972) Optimal niche space in the Red-Winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). I. Nesting success in marsh and upland habitat. Can J Zool 50:247–263Google Scholar
  26. Rohwer S (1982) The evolution of reliable and unreliable badges of fighting ability. Am Zool 22:531–546Google Scholar
  27. Searcy WA (1979a) Female choice of mates: A general model for birds and its application to red-winged blackbirds. Am Nat 114:77–100Google Scholar
  28. Searcy WA (1979b) Morphological correlates of dominance in captive male red-winged blackbirds. Condor 81:417–420Google Scholar
  29. Searcy WA (1979c) Male characteristics and pairing success in red-winged blackbirds. Auk 96:353–363Google Scholar
  30. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K (1981) Does the sexy son hypothesis apply to mate choice in red-winged blackbirds? Am Nat 117:343–348Google Scholar
  31. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K (1983) Sexual selection and red-winged blackbirds. Am Sci 71:166–174Google Scholar
  32. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  33. Verner J (1964) The evolution of polygamy in the long-billed marsh wren. Evolution 18:252–261Google Scholar
  34. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1977a) Harem size, territory quality and reproductive success in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Can J Zool 55:1261–1267Google Scholar
  35. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1977b) Male behavior and female recruitment in the red-winged blackbird. Wilson Bull 89:583–592Google Scholar
  36. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1979) Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: “the sexy son hypothesis”. Am Nat 113:201–208Google Scholar
  37. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1981) In defence of the sexy son hypothesis. Am Nat 117:349–356Google Scholar
  38. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection: a critique on some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Wittenberger JF (1976) The ecological factors selecting for polygyny in altricial birds. Am Nat 110:779–799Google Scholar
  40. Wittenberger JF (1981) Time: a hidden dimension in the polygyny threshold model. Am Nat 118:803–822Google Scholar
  41. Yasukawa K (1979) Territory establishment in red-winged blackbirds: importance of aggressive behavior and experience. Condor 81:358–364Google Scholar
  42. Yasukawa K (1981) Male quality and female choice of mate in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology 62:922–929Google Scholar
  43. Yasukawa K, Searcy WA (1982) Aggression in female red-winged blackbirds: a strategy to ensure male parental investment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:13–17Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher G. Eckert
    • 1
  • Patrick J. Weatherhead
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations