Advertisement

Journal für Ornithologie

, Volume 127, Issue 4, pp 447–461 | Cite as

Factors affecting facultative polygyny and breeding results in the Great Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus)

  • Andrzej Dyrcz
Article

Summary

In a population of Great Reed Warbler (42–53 stationary males) the sex ratio was balanced and occurence of polygynous males (on average 15 % of the males) was more or less compensated by respective number of unmated males. Prospective polygynists arrived earlier in spring on average than monogamists, and got the first female quicker. Their territories were larger (statistically insignificant) and more often situated close to good foraging grounds. The reeds around primary female nests were on average thicker (and taller) and not so dense as in the case of monogamous, secondary and tertiary females. The intensity of nestling feeding (no. of visits per nestling per hour) was higher in the nests of monogamous females, than in primary females, and lowest in secondary and tertiary females nests. Nestlings in secondary and tertiary female broods were on average lighter than in monogamous and primary female broods. The male helped feed nestlings in secondary female nest only exceptionally. In monogamous situation their share in feeding was ca. 50%, and less so in primary female nests. Production of fledglings per female was highest in primary females and lowest in secondary and tertiary females, mainly due to the high starvation rate in the nests of secondary and tertiary females. Generally, collected data strongly suggest that female choice is determined by territory quality, and polygyny threshold hypothesis cannot be rejected. The “deception” hypothesis cannot be rejected as well in some observed special situations (disruptive territories or polyterritoriality; four cases).

Keywords

Female Choice Stationary Male Respective Number Great Reed Warbler Territory Quality 
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.

Voraussetzungen für fakultative Polygynie beim Drosselrohrsänger (Acrocephalus arundinaceus)

Zusammenfassung

Das Geschlechterverhältnis in der untersuchten Drosselrohrsänger-Population von 42 bis 53 ♂ war ausgeglichen. Das Auftreten polygyner ♂ (durchschnittlich 15 % der ♂) wurde mehr oder weniger durch eine entsprechende Anzahl unverpaarter ♂ kompensiert. Prospektiv polygyne ♂ kamen durchschnittlich früher an als monogame und waren schneller verpaart. Ihre Reviere waren (statistisch nicht signifikant) größer und lagen näher zu günstigen Nahrungsgebieten. Das Schilf in der Nähe der Nester von Erst- ♀ war durchschnittlich dicker (und höher) als und nicht so dicht wie bei Einzel- oder Zweit- und Dritt- ♀. Die Fütterungsfrequenz der Nestlinge (Anzahl der Besuche beider Altvögel mit Futter pro Nestling pro Stunde) war bei Nestern von Einzel- ♀ höher als bei Erst- ♀ und am niedrigsten bei Nestern von Zweit- und Dritt-♀. Nestlinge von Zweit- und Dritt- ♀ waren durchschnittlich leichter als solche von Einzel-und Erst- ♀. ♂ halfen nur ausnahmsweise bei der Fütterung von Nestlingen von Zweit- ♀. Bei monogamen Paaren beteiligten sich die ♂ ungefähr zur Hälfte an der Fütterung der Nestlinge, bei Nestern von Erst- ♀ in geringerem Umfang. Der Ausfliegeerfolg war am höchsten beim Erst- ♀ und am niedrigsten bei Zweit- und Dritt- ♀, hauptsächlich bedingt durch Verhungern der Nestlinge. Allgemein legen die Daten nahe, da\ die ♀ die ♂ nach der Revierqualität auswählen und daß das Polygynieschwellenmodell vonOrians undVerner nicht abgelehnt werden kann. Einige Beobachtungen stützen die Hypothese, daß ♂ in bestimmten Situationen (unübersichtliche Reviere, Polyterritorialität) durch Täuschung polygyn werden.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Alatalo, R., A. Carlson, A. Lundberg &S. Ulfstrand (1981): The conflict between male polygamy and female monogamy: the case of the Pied FlycatcherFicedula hypoleuca. Am. Nat. 117: 738–753.Google Scholar
  2. Alatalo, R., A. Lundberg &K. Stahlbrand (1982): Why do Pied Flycatcher females mate with already-mated males? Anim. Behav. 30: 585–593.Google Scholar
  3. Ditto (1984): Female mate choice in the Pied FlycatcherFicedula hypoleuca. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 253–261.Google Scholar
  4. Beier, J. (1981): Untersuchungen an Drossel- und Teichrohrsänger (Acrocephalus arundinaceus, A. scirpaceus): Bestandsentwicklung, Brutbiologie, Ökologie. J. Orn. 122: 209–230.Google Scholar
  5. Borowiec, M. (1983): Study on colour ringed breeding population of Reed WarblersAcrocephalus scirpaceus at Milicz fish ponds. Dolina Baryczy 2: 2–10. (in Polish, English summary).Google Scholar
  6. Bussmann, C. (1979): Ökologische Sonderung der Rohrsänger Südfrankreichs aufgrund von Nahrungsstudien. Vogelwarte 30: 84–101.Google Scholar
  7. Catchpole, C. K. (1972): A comparative study of territory in the Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) and the Sedge Warbler (A. schoenobaenus). J. Zool. Lond. 166: 213–231.Google Scholar
  8. Ditto (1983): Variation in the song of the Great Reed WarblerAcrocephalus arundinaceus in relation to mate attraction and territorial defence. Anim. Behav. 31: 1217–1225.Google Scholar
  9. Catchpole, C. K. B. Leisler &H. Winkler (1985): The evolution of polygyny in the Great Reed WarblerAcrocephalus arundinaceus: a possible case of deception. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 285–291.Google Scholar
  10. Dawkins, R. (1976): The selfish gene. XII + 224 pp. Oxford Univ. Press, London.Google Scholar
  11. Dowsett-Lemaire, F. (1980): La territorialité chez la rousserolle verderolle,Acrocephalus palustris. Rev. Ecol. (Terre et Vie) 34: 45–67.Google Scholar
  12. Ditto (1981): Eco-ethological aspects of breeding in the Marsh Warbler,Acrocephalus palustris. Rev. Ecol. (Terre et Vie) 35: 437–491.Google Scholar
  13. Dyrcz, A. (1974): Factors affecting the growth rate of nestling Great Reed Warblers and Reed Warblers at Milicz, Poland. Ibis 116: 330–339.Google Scholar
  14. Ditto (1977): Polygamy and breeding success among Great Reed WarblersAcrocephalus arundinaceus at Milicz, Poland. Ibis 119: 73–77.Google Scholar
  15. Ditto (1979): Die Nestlingsnahrung bei DrosselrohrsängerAcrocephalus arundinaceus und TeichrohrsängerAcrocephalus scirpaceus an den Teichen bei Milicz in Polen und zwei Seen in der Westschweiz. Orn. Beob. 76: 305–316.Google Scholar
  16. Ditto (1981): Breeding ecology of Great Reed warblerAcrocephalus arundinaceus and Reed WarblerAcrocephalus scirpaceus at fish-ponds in SW Poland and lakes in NW Switzerland. Acta orn. 18: 307–334.Google Scholar
  17. Emlen, S. T. &L. W. Oring (1977): Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215–223.Google Scholar
  18. Ezaki, Y. (1981): Female behaviour and pair relation of the polygynous Great Reed WarblerAcrocephalus arundinaceus (Aves: Sylviinae). Physiol. Ecol. Japan 18: 77–91.Google Scholar
  19. Ford, N. L. (1983): Variation in mate fidelity in monogamous birds. In: Current Ornithology,R. F. Johnston ed.; Vol. 1: 329–356. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Garson, P. J., W. K. Pleszczynska &C. H. Holm (1981): The polygyny treshold model: a reassessment. Can. J. Zool. 59: 902–910.Google Scholar
  21. Heisler, I. L. (1981): Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: a new model for the sexy son hypothesis. Am. Nat. 117: 316–328.Google Scholar
  22. Kendeigh, S. C. (1952): Parental care and its evolution. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 22: 1–356.Google Scholar
  23. Kluyver, H. N. (1955): Das Verhalten des Drosselrohrsängers,Acrocephalus arundinaceus am Brutplatz mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nestbautechnik und der Revierbehauptung. Ardea 43: 1–50.Google Scholar
  24. Maynard-Smith, J. (1958): The theory of evolution. Penguin, Harmonds worth.Google Scholar
  25. Merkel, F. W. (1982): Sozialverhalten von individuell markierten Staren —Sturnus vulgaris — in einer kleinen Nistkastenkolonie. III, IV. Luscinia 44: 133–158, 239–254.Google Scholar
  26. Lack, D. (1968): Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  27. Orians, G. H. (1969): On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 103: 589–603.Google Scholar
  28. Peltzer, R. J. (1972): Notes on the polygamous behaviour ofAcrocephalus arundinaceus. Proc. 15th Int. Orn. Congress, Leiden: 676–677.Google Scholar
  29. Schulze-Hagen K. (1984): Bruterfolg des Sumpfrohrsängers (Acrocephalus palustris) in Abhängigkeit von der Nistplatzwahl. J. Orn. 125: 201–208.Google Scholar
  30. Searcy, W. A., &K. Yasukawa (1981): Does the sexy son hypothesis apply to mate choice in Red-winged Blackbirds. Am. Nat. 117: 343–348.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, J. N., Y. Yom-Tov &R. Moses (1982): Polygyny, male parental care, and sex ratio in Song Sparrows: An experimental study. Auk 99: 555–564.Google Scholar
  32. Trivers, R. L. (1972): Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual Selection and the descent of Man (B. Campbell ed.): Aldine, 1871–1971, Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Verner, J. (1964): Evolution of polygamy in the Long-billed Marsh Wren. Evolution 18: 252–261.Google Scholar
  34. Ditto (1966): The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47: 143–147.Google Scholar
  35. Weatherhead, P. J., &R. J. Robertson (1979): Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: the sexy son hypothesis. Am. Nat. 113: 201–208.Google Scholar
  36. Ditto (1981): In defense of the sexy son hypothesis. Am. Nat. 117: 349–356.Google Scholar
  37. Winkel, W., &D. Winkel (1984): Polygynie des TrauerschnäppersFicedula hypoleuca am Westrand seines Areals in Mitteleuropa. J. Orn. 125: 1–14.Google Scholar
  38. Wittenberger, J. F. (1980): Vegetation structure, food supply, and polygyny in Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). Ecology 61: 140–150.Google Scholar
  39. Ditto (1981 a): Male quality and polygyny: the sexy son hypothesis revisited. Am Nat. 117: 329–342.Google Scholar
  40. Ditto (1981 b): Animal social behavior. XI + 722 pp. Duxbury Press, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Verlag der Deutschen Ornithologen-Gesellschaft 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej Dyrcz
    • 1
  1. 1.From Dept. of Avian Ecology Wrocław UniversityPoland

Personalised recommendations