Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 285–291

Polygyny in the great reed warbler, Acrocephalus arundinaceus: a possible case of deception

  • Clive Catchpole
  • Bernd Leisler
  • Hans Winkler
Article

Summary

Polygyny was studied for 1 year in a great reed warbler population breeding in southern Germany. Data on various parameters of male and territory characteristics were collected and subjected to multivariate statistical analysis in order to assess their relative importance in female choice. Differences in territory characteristics appeared to be more important (Tab. 1), but there was a strong correlation between male and territory characteristics (Fig. 2, 3). Although the evolutionary advantages of polygyny to males are obvious (Fig. 5), those to females are far from clear. Models based upon the polygyny threshold and sexy son hypotheses predict that females should gain evolutionary advantage in either the short or long-term. Our data did not confirm such predictions, and secondary females showed greatly reduced breeding success (Fig. 4). If females were able to assess the status of mated males, they should instead select unmated males. Great reed warblers are a migrant species with a short breeding cycle in which the male plays relatively little part. They defend large territories in reed beds where visibility is reduced. These factors may permit males to practice a form of deception, by moving and attracting a second female who has little chance to assess that he is already mated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alatalo R, 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. Beier J (1981) Untersuchungen an Drossel- und Teichrohrsänger (Acrocephalus arundinaceus, A. scirpaceus): Bestandsentwicklung, Brutbiologie, Ökologie. J Ornithol 122:209–230Google Scholar
  4. Catchpole CK (1983) Variation in the song of the Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus in relation to mate attraction and territorial defence. Anim Behav 31:1217–1225Google Scholar
  5. Cox DR (1970) The analysis of binary data. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Dyrcz A (1977) Polygamy and breeding succes among Great Reed Warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus at Milicz, Poland. Ibis 119:73–77Google Scholar
  8. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223Google Scholar
  9. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Garson PJ, Pleszczynska WK, Holm CH (1981) The polygyny threshold model: a reassessment. Can J Zool 59:902–910Google Scholar
  11. Heisler IL (1981) Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: a new model for the sexy son hypothesis. Am Nat 117:316–328Google Scholar
  12. Jennrich RI (1977) Stepwise regression. In: Enslein K, Ralston A, Wilf HS (eds) Statistical methods for digital computers. Wiley, New York, pp 58–75Google Scholar
  13. Kluyver HN (1955) Das Verhalten des Drosselrohrsängers, Acrocephalus arundinaceus am Brutplatz mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nestbautechnik und der Revierbehauptung. Ardea 43:1–50Google Scholar
  14. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Leisler B (1981) Die ökologische Einmischung der mitteleuropäischen Rohrsänger (Acrocephalus, Sylviinae). I. Habitattrennung. Vogelwarte 31:45–74Google Scholar
  16. Lenington S (1983)CCommentary on the study of avian mating systems. In: Brush AH, Clark GA (eds) Perspectives in ornithology. Cambridge University Press, pp 85–91Google Scholar
  17. Mock DW (1983) On the study of avian mating systems. In: Brush AH, Clark GA (eds) Perspectives in ornithology. Cambridge University Press, pp 55–84Google Scholar
  18. Morrison DF (1976) Multivariate statistical methods, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Orians GH (1969) On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am Nat 103:589–603Google Scholar
  20. Oring LW (1982) Avian mating systems. In: Farner DS, King JR, Parkes KC (eds) Avian biology, vol 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–92Google Scholar
  21. Peltzer RJ (1972) Notes on the polygamous behaviour of Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Proc 15th Int Ornithol Congr, Leiden, pp 676–677Google Scholar
  22. Pleszczynska WK (1978) Microgeographic prediction of polygyny in the lark bunting. Science 201:935–937Google Scholar
  23. Price FE, Bock CE (1973) Polygyny in the dipper. Condor 75:457–459Google Scholar
  24. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K (1981) Does the sexy son hypothesis apply to mate choice in Red-winged Blackbirds. Am Nat 117:343–348Google Scholar
  25. Verner J (1964) Evolution of polygamy in the Long-billed Marsh Wren. Evolution 18:252–261Google Scholar
  26. Verner J, Willson MF (1966) The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47:143–147Google Scholar
  27. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1979) Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: the sexy son hypothesis. Am Nat 113:201–208Google Scholar
  28. Weatherhead JP, Robertson RJ (1981) In defense of the sexy son hypothesis. Am Nat 117:349–356Google Scholar
  29. Winkel W, Winkel D (1984) Polygynic des Trauerschnäppers (Ficedula hypoleuca) am Westrand seines Areals in Mitteleuropa. J Ornithol 125:1–14Google Scholar
  30. Wittenberger JF (1979) The evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. In: Marler P, Vandenbergh J (eds) Handbook of behavioral neurobiology, vol 3, Social behavior and communication. Plenum, New York, pp 271–349Google Scholar
  31. Wittenberger JF (1981) Male quality and polygyny: the sexy son hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 117:329–342Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clive Catchpole
    • 1
  • Bernd Leisler
    • 2
  • Hans Winkler
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Royal Holloway and Bedford CollegesUniversity of LondonEngland
  2. 2.Max-Planck-Institut für VerhaltensphysiologieVogelwarte Radolfzell und AndechsRadolfzellFederal Republic of Germany
  3. 3.Institut für Limnologie der Österreichischen Akademie der WissenschaftenMondseeAustria

Personalised recommendations