Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 95–102 | Cite as

Vocalizations and courtship intensity correlate with mounting success in marginated tortoises Testudo marginata

  • Roberto Sacchi
  • Paolo Galeotti
  • Mauro Fasola
  • Donato Ballasina
Original Article


The courtship and mounting behaviour of tortoises is elaborate, and based on a multiple signalling system involving visual, olfactory and acoustic signals. Vocalizations related to mounting seem to be particularly significant because tortoises vocalize mainly at this time. Vocalizations and courtship behaviour may be costly for males, and if these costs increase differentially for different males, then the potential exists for vocalizations and displays to reveal male individual quality. In this correlative study, we analysed relationships between male mounting success and morphological and behavioural traits, particularly acoustic signals, exhibited by male marginated tortoises (Testudo marginata) during courtship, in a group of 94 individuals breeding in semi-natural enclosures. For each male, we estimated general body condition, courtship intensity and mounting success; calls of mounting males were recorded and four sonagraphic features were measured. Calls differed significantly among males, and two features varied according to body condition. Male mounting success significantly increased according to the male/female size-ratio, suggesting the existence of a size-based assortative mating. Mounting success was also highly correlated with courtship intensity, measured as number of bites and rams given to females before mounting, and with number of calls emitted during mounting. Finally, mounting success was negatively related to call duration. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which features of tortoise vocalizations are shown to convey reliable information about male quality in socio-sexual contexts.


Call features Courtship intensity Mating success Marginated tortoise Testudo marginata 



We are very grateful to T. Czeschlik, A. Zahavi and two anonymous referees for providing helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank F. Pedrazzoli and R. Copetti for help with field work. The study was financially supported by a MURST grant (COFIN 2000) to P.G., M.F. and R.S. This study conformed with the current Italian laws on tortoise captivity.


  1. Alexander RD (1975) Natural selection and specialized chorusing behaviour in acoustic insects. In: Pimentel D (ed) Insects, science and society. Academic, New York, pp 33–77Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368Google Scholar
  4. Berry JF, Shine R (1980) Sexual size dimorphism and sexual selection in turtles (Order Testudines). Oecologia 44:185–191Google Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1993) Sexual selection and the temporal separation of reproductive events: sperm storage data from reptiles, birds and mammals. Biol J Linn Soc 50:295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgia G (1979) Sexual selection and the evolution of mating sistems. In: Blum M, Blum A (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition. Academic, New York, pp 19–80Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, MassGoogle Scholar
  9. Ernst CH, Barbour RW (1989) Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Field A (2000) Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. Sage, MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  11. Galeotti P, Sacchi R, Fasola M, Ballasina D (2003) Do mounting vocalizations in tortoises have a communicative function? A comparative analysis. Herpetol J (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Gist DH, Jones JM (1989) Sperm storage within the oviduct of turtles. J Morphol 199:379–384Google Scholar
  13. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gromko MH, Newport MEA, Kortier MG (1984) Sperm dependence of female receptivity to remating in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 38:1273–1282Google Scholar
  15. Halliday T (1978) Sexual selection and mate choice. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 180–213Google Scholar
  16. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do female mate multiply? A review of genetic benefits. Biol Rev Cambridge Philos Soc 75:21–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kempenaers B, Congdon B, Boag P, Robertson RJ (1999) Extra-pair paternity and egg hatchability in the tree swallow: evidence for genetic compatibility hypothesis? Behav Ecol 10:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuchling G (1999) The reproductive biology of Chelonia. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Loman J, Madsen T, Hakansson T (1988) Increased fitness from multiple mating, and genetic heterogeneity: a model of a possible mechanism. Oikos 52:69–72Google Scholar
  20. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T (1992) Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355:440–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T (1993) Determinants of mating success in male adders, Vipera berus. Anim Behav 45:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McTaggart SJ (2000) Good genes or sexy sons? Testing the benefits of female mate choice in painted turtles, Chrysemys picta. University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  23. Mrosowsky N (1972) Spectrographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica 28:256–258Google Scholar
  24. Olsson M, Madsen T (1998) Sexual selection and sperm competition in reptiles. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  25. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T (1996) Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585Google Scholar
  26. Olsson M, Madsen T, Shine R (1997) Is sperm really so cheap? Cost of reproduction in adders, Vipera berus. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:455–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearse DE, Avise JC (2001) Turtle mating systems: behavior, sperm storage, and genetic paternity. J Hered 92:206–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearse DE, Janzen FJ, Avise JC (2000) Genetic markers substantiate long-term storage and utilization of sperm by female painted turtles. Heredity 86:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearse DE, Janzen FJ, Avise JC (2002) Multiple paternity, sperm storage, and reproductive success of female and male painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) in nature. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  31. Sokal RR, Rolhlf FJ (1980) Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Swingland I, Stubbs D (1985) The ecology of a Mediterranean tortoise (Testudo hermanni): reproduction. J Zool Lond 205:595–610Google Scholar
  33. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Trivers R (1972) Paternal investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BG (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  35. Weaver WGJ (1970) Courtship and combat behavior in Gopherus berlanderi. Bull Fla State Mus 15:1–43Google Scholar
  36. Wetton JH, Parkin DT (1991) An association between fertility and cuckoldry in the house sparrow, Passer domesticus. Proc R Soc Lond B 245:227–233Google Scholar
  37. Yasui Y (1997) A "good sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zahavi A (1977a) The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol 67:603–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zahavi A (1977b) The testing of the bond. Anim Behav 25:246–247Google Scholar
  40. Zahavi A (1991) On the definition of sexual selection, Fisher's model, and the evolution of waste and of signals in general. Anim Behav 42:501–503Google Scholar
  41. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle. A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry. I. Intragenomic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717Google Scholar
  43. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry. II. Post copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Sacchi
    • 1
  • Paolo Galeotti
    • 1
  • Mauro Fasola
    • 1
  • Donato Ballasina
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratorio di Eco-Etologia, Dipartimento di Biologia AnimaleUniversità di PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2."CARAPAX"European Centre for Tortoise ConservationGrossetoItaly

Personalised recommendations