Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 855–871 | Cite as

The interrelationships between resource-holding potential, resource-value and reproductive success in territorial males: How much variation can we explain?

Review

Abstract

A long-standing hypothesis in behavioural ecology posits that males with greater resource-holding potential (RHP) control resource sites deemed more valuable by sexually-receptive females and, thereby, males controlling such sites accrue greater reproductive success (RS). This hypothesis has historically been investigated using three separate but non-mutually exclusive relationships (male RHP vs. resource value, resource value vs. male RS and male RHP vs. RS). The relationships between these three variables are predicted to be strongly positive, however, due to measurement error and biological noise, perfect correlations (r = 1.0) are rare in biology even for well-established relationships. Moreover, the inaccurate identification of either the male trait(s) important to RHP or the resource characteristic sought by females will weaken the observed strength of the relationships. Here, I use meta-analysis to quantitatively describe the general pattern of these relationships in animals. I predict that the relationships between male RHP, resource-value and RS should be significantly positive (male RHP and resource-value should explain a large amount of the variation in male RS). My meta-analysis supports this hypothesis; however, in the best case scenario only ca. 20% of the variation in the response variable was explained. I conclude by identifying areas in which we need to improve our investigations of resource-defence animals and recommending approaches to meet these needs.

Keywords

Resource-defence Resource-holding potential Resource value Mating success Sexual selection Meta-analysis Publication bias 

Supplementary material

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Glynn C (1986) Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature 323:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock J (1987) The effects of experimental manipulation of resources on the behavior of two calopterygid damselflies that exhibit resource-defense polygyny. Can J Zool 65:2475–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcock J (1995) Body size and its effect on male-male competition in Hylaeus alcyoneus (Hymenoptera, Colletidae). J Insect Behav 8:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcock J, Eickwort GC, Eickwort KR (1977) The reproductive behaviour of Anthidium maculosum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and the evolutionary significance of multiple copulations by females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alcock JA, Houston TF (1987) Resource defense and alternative mating tactics in the Banksia bee, Hylaeus alcyoneus (Erichson). Ethology 76:177–188Google Scholar
  6. Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson S, Pryke SR, Ornborg J, Lawes MJ, Andersson M (2002) Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a trade-off between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. Am Nat 160:683–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Arnqvist G, Wooster D (1995) Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 10:236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Backwell PRY, Passmore NI (1996) Time constraints and multiple choice criteria in the sampling behaviour and mate choice of the fiddler crab, Uca annulipes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baird TA (1988) Female and male territoriality and mating system of the sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri. Environ Biol Fishes 22:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baird TA, Liley NR (1989) The evolutionary significance of harem polygyny in the sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri: Resource or female defence? Anim Behav 38:817–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baker RR (1983) Insect territoriality. Annu Rev Entomol 28:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ballentine B, Hill GE (2003) Female mate choice in relation to structural plumage coloration in Blue Grosbeaks. Condor 105:593–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Balmford A, Rosser AM, Albon SD (1992) Correlates of female choice in resource-defending antelope. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Begg C (1994) Publication bias. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp 399–409Google Scholar
  17. Blanckenhorn WU, Frei J, Birrer M (2003) The effect of female arrivals on mate monopolization in the yellow dung fly. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Borgia G (1980) Sexual competition in Scatophaga stercoraria: size- and density-related changes in male ability to capture females. Behaviour 75:185–206Google Scholar
  19. Brooks R, Kemp DJ (2001) Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol Evol 16:308–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brown WD, Crespi BJ, Choe JC (1997) Sexual conflict and the evolution of mating systems. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 130–145Google Scholar
  21. Calf KM, Downs CT, Cherry MI (2003) Territoriality and breeding success in the Cape Sugarbird (Promerops cafer). Emu 103:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carey PW (1991) Resource-defense polygyny and male territory quality in the New Zealand fur seal. Ethology 88:63–79Google Scholar
  24. Carranza J (1995) Female attraction by males versus sites in territorial rutting red deer. Anim Behav 50:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carranza J, Fernez-Llario P, Gomendio M (1996) Correlates of territoriality in rutting red deer. Ethology 102:793–805Google Scholar
  26. Carvalho N, Afonso P, Santos RSA (2003) The haremic mating system and mate choice in the wide-eyed flounder, Bothus podas. Environ Biol Fishes 66:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Catchpole CK (1986) Song repertoires and reproductive success in the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Christy JH, Schober UM (1994) A test for resource-defense mating in the fiddler crab Uca beebei. Anim Behav 48:795–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Conrad KF, Pritchard G (1992) An ecological classification of odonate mating systems - the relative influence of natural, intersexual and intrasexual selection on males. Biol J Linean Soc 45:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Convey P (1989) Influences on the choice between territorial and satellite behaviour in male Libellula quadrimaculata Linn. (Odonata: Libellulidae). Behaviour 109:125–141Google Scholar
  31. Cooper H, Hedges LV (1994) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. Cordoba-Aguilar A (2002) Wing pigmentation in territorial male damselflies, Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis: a possible relation to sexual selection. Anim Behav 63:759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Côte IM, Hunte W (1989) Male and female choice in the redlip blenny: why bigger is better. Anim Behav 38:78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dale S, Rinden H, Slagsvold T (1992) Competition for a mate restricts mate search of female pied flycatchers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dale S, Slagsvold T (1990) Random settlement of female pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca: Significance of male territory size. Anim Behav 39:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Debuse VJ, Addison JT, Reynolds JD (2003) Effects of breeding site density on competition and sexual selection in the European lobster. Behav Ecology 14:396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Downhower JF, Brown L (1980) Mate preferences of female mottled sculpins, Cottus bairdi. Anim Behav 28:728–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000a) A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Amer Stat Assoc 95:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000b) Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Evans MR, Burn JL (1996) An experimental analysis of mate choice in the wren: A monomorphic, polygynous passerine. Behavl Ecol 7:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fincke OM (1992) Consequences of larval ecology for territoriality and reproductive success of a neotropical damselfly. Ecology 73:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fiske P, Rintamäki PT, Karvonen E (1998) Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 9:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fitzpatrick SM, Wellington WG (1983) Insect territoriality. Canad J Zool 61:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Forstmeier W (2002) Factors contributing to male mating success in the polygynous dusky warbler (Phylloscopus fuscatus). Behaviour 139:1361–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Forstmeier W, Leisler B (2004) Repertoire size, sexual selection, and offspring viability in the great reed warbler: changing patterns in space and time. Behav Ecol 15:555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Forsyth A, Alcock J (1990) Female mimicry and resource defense polygyny by males of a tropical rove beetle, Leistotrophus versicolor (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Forsyth A, Montgomerie RD (1987) Alternative reproductive tactics in the territorial damslefly Calopteryx maculata: sneaking by older males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Friedl TWP, Klump GM (1999) Determinants of male mating success in the red bishop (Euplectes orix). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Giacomello E, Rasotto MB (2005) Sexual dimorphism and male mating success in the tentacled blenny, Parablennius tentacularis (Teleostei: Blenniidae). Mar Biol 147:1221–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Goldsmith SK (1987) The mating system and alternative reproductive behaviors of Dendrobias mandibularis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Goldsmith SK, Alcock J (1993) The mating chances of small males of the cerambycid beetle Trachyderes mandibularis differ in different environments (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). J Insect Behav 6:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gontard-Danek MC, Møller AP (1999) The strength of sexual selection: a meta-analysis of bird studies. Behav Ecol 10:476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Göransson G, von Schantz T, Fröberg I, Helgée A, Wittzell H (1990) Male characteristics, viability and harem size in the pheasant, Phasianus colchicus. Anim Behav 40:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gottlander K (1987) Variation in the song rate of the male pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 35:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Grahn M, Goransson G, Vonschantz T (1993) Territory acquisition and mating success in pheasants, Phasianus colchicus: an experiment. Anim Behav 46:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Greenfield MD, Minckley RL (1993) Acoustic duelling in tarbush grasshoppers: settlement of territorial contests via alternation of reliable signals. Ethology 95:309–326Google Scholar
  58. Gwynne DT, Jamieson I (1998) Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in a harem-polygynous insect, the alpine weta (Hemideina maori, Orthoptera Stenopelmatidae). Ethol Ecol Evol 10:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gwynne DT, O'Neill KM (1980) Territoriality in digger wasps results in sex biased predation on males (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae, Philanthus). J Kans Entomol Soc 53:220–224Google Scholar
  60. Hansson B, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2000) Patterns of nest predation contribute to polygyny in the great reed warbler. Ecology 81:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hasselquist D (1998) Polygyny in great reed warblers: A long-term study of factors contributing to male fitness. Ecology 79:2376–2390Google Scholar
  62. Heckel G, von Helversen O (2002) Male tactics and reproductive success in the harem polygynous bat Saccopteryx bilineata. Behav Ecol 13:750–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. Academic Press, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  64. Heimpel GE, Lee JC, Wu ZS, Weiser L, Wackers F, Jervis MA (2004) Gut sugar analysis in field-caught parasitoids: adapting methods originally developed for biting flies. Int J Pest Manag 50:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hernandez MIM, Benson WW (1998) Small-male advantage in the territorial tropical butterfly Heliconius sara (Nymphalidae): a paradoxical strategy? Anim Behav 56:533–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hoffmann AA (1987) A laboratory study of male territoriality in the sibling species Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Anim Behav 35:807–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hoffmann AA (1990) The influence of age and experience with conspecifics on territorial behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Behav 3:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hoi-Leitner M, Nechtelberger H, Hoi H (1995) Song rate as a signal for nest-site quality in blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Howard RD (1978a) The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Howard RD (1978b) The influence of male-defended oviposition sites on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecology 59:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hughes AL, Hughes MK (1985) Female choice of mates in a polygynous insect, the whitespotted sawyer Monochamus scutellatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussiere LF (2004) High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Jennions MD (1998) Tibial coloration, fluctuating asymmetry and female choice behaviour in the damselfly Platycypha caligata. Anim Behav 55:1517–1528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Jennions MD, Moller AP, Hunt J (2004) Meta-analysis can “fail": reply to Kotiaho and Tomkins. Oikos 104:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Jennions MD, Møller AP (2002) Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method. Biol Rev 77:211–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jennions MD, Møller AP, Petrie M (2001) Sexually selected traits and adult survival: A meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol 76:3–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Jones GP (1981) Spawning-site choice by female Pseudolabrus celidotus (Pisces: Labridae) and its influence on the mating system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kelly CD (2005) Allometry and sexual selection of male weaponry in Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens. Behav Ecol 16:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kelly CD (2006a) Replicating empirical research in behavioral ecology: How and Why it should be done but rarely ever is. Q Rev Biol 81:221–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kelly CD (2006b) The relationship between resource control, association with females and male weapon size in a male-dominance insect. Ethology 112:362–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kelly CD (2006c) Resource quality or harem size: What influences male tenure at refuge sites in tree weta (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae)? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Keyser AJ, Hill GE (2000) Structurally based plumage coloration is an honest signal of quality in male blue grosbeaks. Behav Ecol 11:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Koenig WD, Albano SS (1985) Patterns of territoriality and mating success in the white-tailed skimmer Plathemis lydia (Odonata: Anisoptera). Am Midl Nat 114:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Koricheva J (2003) Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? Oikos 102:397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL (2002) Meta-analysis, can it ever fail? Oikos 96:551–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kroon FJ, de Graaf M, Liley NR (2000) Social organisation and competition for refuges and nest sites in Coryphopterus nicholsii (Gobiidae), a temperate protogynous reef fish. Environ Biol Fishes 57:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kwiatkowski MA, Sullivan BK (2002) Mating system structure and population density in a polygynous lizard, Sauromalus obesus (= ater). Behav Ecology 13:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lampe HM, Espmark YO (2003) Mate choice in pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca: can females use song to find high-quality males and territories? Ibis 145:E24–E33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lebas NR (2001) Microsatellite determination of male reproductive success in a natural population of the territorial ornate dragon lizard, Ctenophorus ornatus. Mol Ecol 10:193–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lightbody JP, Weatherhead PJ (1987) Polygyny in the yellow-headed blackbird: female choice versus male competition. Anim Behav 35:1670–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lightbody JP, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Female settling patterns and polygyny: tests of a neutral-mate-choice hypothesis. Am Nat 132:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lindström K (1988) Male-male competition for nest sites in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Oikos 53:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lindström K (1992) The effect of resource holding potential, nest size and information about resource quality on the outcome of intruder-owner conflicts in the sand goby. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lindström K, Pampoulie C (2005) Effects of resource holding potential and resource value on tenure at nest sites in sand gobies. Behav Ecol 16:70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lindström K, Seppä T (1996) The environmental potential for polygyny and sexual selection in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1319–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lorch PD, Gwynne DT (2000) Radio-telemetric evidence of migration in the gregarious but not the solitary morph of the Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Naturwissenschaften 87:370–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Maher CR, Lott DF (2000) A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within vertebrate species. Am Midl Nat 143:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Marden JH, Waage JK (1990) Escalated damselfly territorial contests are energetic wars of attrition. Anim Behav 39:954–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. McLain DK (1984) Host plant density and territorial behavior of the seed bug, Neacoryphus bicrucis (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. McLain DK (1992) Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Miller GR, Watson A (1978) erritories and food plant of individual red grouse: I. Territory size, number of mates and brood size compared with abundance, production and diversity of heather. J Anim Ecol 47:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Miyatake T (1993) Male-male aggressive behavior is changed by body-size difference in the leaf-footed plant bug, Leptoglossus australis, Fabricius (Heteroptera, Coreidae). J Ethol 11:63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Miyatake T (1995) Territorial mating aggregation in the bamboo bug, Notobitus meleagris, Fabricius (Heteroptera: Coreidae). J Ethol 13:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Miyatake T (2002) Multi-male mating aggregation in Notobitus meleagris (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:340–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Moore AJ (1990) The evolution of sexual dimorphsim by sexual selection: The separate effects of intrasexual and intersexual selection. Evolution 44:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001a) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001b) Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends Ecol Evol 16:580–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2002) How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132:492–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Møller AP, Thornhill R (1998) Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am Nat 151:174–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Møller AP, Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (2005) Direct and indirect tests for publication bias: asymmetry and sexual selection. Anim Behav 70:497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Nijman V, Heuts BA (2000) Effect of environmental enrichment upon resource holding power in fish in prior residence situations. Behav Processes 49:77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Oliveira RF, Carvalho N, Miranda J, Goncalves EJ, Grober M, Santos RS (2002) The relationship between the presence of satellite males and nest-holders’ mating success in the Azorean rock-pool blenny Parablennius sanguinolentus parvicornis. Ethology 108:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Oliveira RF, Miranda JA, Carvalho N, Goncalves EJ, Grober MS, Santos RS (2000) Male mating success in the Azorean rock-pool blenny: the effects of body size, male behaviour and nest characteristics. J Fish Biol 57:1416–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Otronen M (1984a) Male contests for territories and females in the fly Dryomyza anilis. Anim Behav 32:891–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Otronen M (1984b) The effect of differences in body size on the male territorial system of the fly Dryomyza anilis. Anim Behav 32:882–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Palmer AR (1999) Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: A case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Am Nat 154:220–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Papaj DR (1994) Oviposition site guarding by male walnut flies and its possible consequences for mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:187–195Google Scholar
  119. Papeschi A, Carroll JP, Dessi-Fulgheri F (2003) Wattle size is correlated with male territorial rank in juvenile ring-necked pheasants. Condor 105:362–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Parish DMB, Coulson JC (1998) Parental investment, reproductive success and polygyny in the lapwing, Vanellus vanellus. Anim Behav 56:1161–1167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Plaistow S, Siva-Jothy MT (1996) Energetic constraints and male mate-securing tactics in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens xanthostoma (Charpentier). Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1233–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Pomiankowski AN (1988) The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 5:136–184Google Scholar
  124. Powers DR (1987) Effects of variation in food quality on the breeding territoriality of the male Anna hummingbird. Condor 89:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Pribil S, Searcy WA (2001) Experimental confirmation of the polygyny threshold model for red-winged blackbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1643–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2002) A generalized female bias for long tails in a short-tailed widowbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2141–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2003a) Carotenoid-based epaulettes reveal male competitive ability: experiments with resident and floater red-shouldered widowbirds. Anim Behav 66:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2003b) Carotenoid-based status signalling in red-shouldered widowbirds (Euplectes axillaris): epaulet size and redness affect captive and territorial competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:393–401Google Scholar
  129. Pryke SR, Andersson S, Lawes MJ (2001) Sexual selection of multiple handicaps in the red-collared widowbird: Female choice of tail length but not carotenoid display. Evolution 55:1452–1463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Pryke SR, Andersson S, Lawes MJ, Piper SE (2002) Carotenoid status signaling in captive and wild red-collared widowbirds: independent effects of badge size and color. Behav Ecol 13:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Reaney LT, Backwell PRY (2007) Temporal constraints and female preference for burrow width in the fiddler crab, Uca mjoebergi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1515–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Reid ML, Stamps JA (1997) Female mate choice tactics in a resource-based mating system: Field tests of alternative models. Am Nat 150:98–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Reynolds JD, Gross MR (1990) Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Robertson HM (1982) Mating behaviour and its relationship to territoriality in Platycypha caligata (Selys) (Odonata: Chlorocyphidae). Behaviour 79:11–27Google Scholar
  135. Robertson JGM (1986) Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Roithmair ME (1992) Territoriality and male mating success in the dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Ethology 92:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis. 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MSGoogle Scholar
  138. Rosenthal R (1991) Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  139. Rosenthal R (1994) Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp 231–244Google Scholar
  140. Savalli UM (1994a) Mate choice in the yellow-shouldered widowbird: Correlates of male attractiveness. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Savalli UM (1994b) Tail length affects territory ownership in the yellow-shouldered widowbird. Anim Behav 48:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Searcy WA (1979) Female choice of mates: a general model for birds and its application to red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Am Nat 114:77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Severinghaus LL, Kurtak BH, Eickwort GC (1981) The reproductive behavior of Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and the significance of size for territorial males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Shuster SM (1987) Alternative reproductive behaviors: three discrete male morphs in Paracerceis sculpta, an intertidal isopod from the northern Gulf of California. J Crustac Biol 7:318–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Shuster SM (1992) The Reproductive-Behavior of Alpha-Male, Beta-Male, and Gamma-Male Morphs in Paracerceis-Sculpta, a Marine Isopod Crustacean. Behaviour 121:231–258Google Scholar
  146. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (1991) Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod. Nature 350:608–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  148. Siva-Jothy MT (1999) Male wing pigmentation may affect reproductive success via female choice in a calopterygid damselfly (Zygoptera). Behaviour 136:1365–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Stewart PD, Ellwood SA, Macdonald DW (1997) Remote video-surveillance of wildlife - an introduction from experience with the European badger Meles meles. Mamm Rev 27:185–204Google Scholar
  150. Switzer PV (2002) Territory quality, habitat selection, and competition in the amberwing dragonfly, Perithemis tenera (Say) (Odonata: Libellulidae): Population patterns as a consequence of individual behavior. J Kans Entomol Soc 75:145–157Google Scholar
  151. Thompson S (1986) Male spawning success and female choice in the mottled triplefin, Forsterygion varium (Pisces: Tripterygiidae). Anim Behav 34:580–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  154. Thornhill R, Møller AP (1998) The relative importance of size and asymmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol 9:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Tomkins JL, Kotiaho JS (2004) Publication bias in meta-analysis: seeing the wood for the trees. Oikos 104:194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Torres-Vila LM, Jennions MD (2005) Male mating history and female fecundity in the Lepidoptera: do male virgins make better partners? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Tsubaki Y, Ono T (1986) Competition for territorial sites and alternative mating tactics in the dragonfly, Nannophya pygmaea Rambur (Odonata: Libellulidae). Behaviour 97:234–252Google Scholar
  158. Tsubaki Y, Ono T (1987) Effects of age and body size on the male territorial system of the dragonfly, Nannophya pygmaea (Odonata: Libellulidae). Anim Behav 35:518–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Villalobos EM, Shelly TE (1991) Correlates of male mating success in two species of Anthidium bees (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. von Schantz T, Grahn M, Göransson G (1994) Intersexual selection and reproductive success in the pheasant Phasianus colchicus. Am Nat 144:510–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Waage JK (1984) Female and male interactions during courtship in Calopteryx maculata and Calopteryx dimidiata (Odonata, Calopterygidae): Influence of oviposition behavior. Anim Behav 32:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Wells KD (1977) Territoriality and male mating success in the green frog (Rana clamitans). Ecology 58:750–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Wittenberger JF (1983) Tactics of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate Choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 435–447Google Scholar
  164. Wootton JT, Bollinger EK, Hibbard CJ (1986) Mating systems in homogeneous habitats: the effects of female uncertainty, knowledge costs, and random settlement. Am Nat 128:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Yasukawa K (1981) Male quality and female choice of mate in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology 62:922–929Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Toronto at MississaugaMississaugaCanada
  2. 2.School of Botany and ZoologyAustralian National UniversityCanberra, ACTAustralia

Personalised recommendations