Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 117–123 | Cite as

Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success

  • R. M. Gibson
  • J. W. Bradbury


Mate choice cues in sage grouse were reinvestigated by analyzing relationships between male mating success and a range of suggested cues. Display cues were implicated by significant relationships between mating status (whether or not a male mated) and lek attendance, display rate (corrected for effects of female proximity and time of day) and an acoustic component related to temporal and frequency measure of a whistle emltted during the strut display. Although display rate and the acoustic component were intercorrelated, both exerted significant partial effects on mating success in mutivariate analyses. These display measures also differed significantly between males. In contrast, mating success was not significantly related to measures of territory characteristics, including size and proximity to the lek center, or to body size. These results resolve discrepancies between previous studies and provide a basis for experimental analysis of the role of female choice in this lek system.


Sexual Selection Female Proximity Mate Choice Frequency Measure Mating Status 
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. Anderson DJ (1982) Home range: a new non-parametric estimat on technique. Ecology 63:103–112Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1982) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc 17:375–393Google Scholar
  3. Beck TDI, Braun CE (1978) Weights of Colorado sage grouse. Condor 80:241–243Google Scholar
  4. Boake CRB (1985) Genetic consequences of mate choice: A quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science 227:1061–63Google Scholar
  5. Borgia G (1979) Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 19–80Google Scholar
  6. Bradbury JW, Gibson RM (1983) Leks and mate choice. In: Bateson PPG (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–138Google Scholar
  7. Dalke PD, Pyrah DB, Stanton DC, Crawford JE, Schlaterer EF (1964) Ecology, productivity and management of sage grouse in Idaho. J Wildl Manag 27:811–841Google Scholar
  8. Dixon WJ, Brown MB, Engelman L, France JW, Hill MA, Jennrich RI, Toporek JD (1981) BMDP statistical software 1981. University of California Press, Berkeley Los Angeles LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Downhower JF, Brown L (1981) The timing of reproduction and its behavioral consequences for Mottled sculpins Cottus bairdi. In: Alexander RD, Tinkel DW (eds) Natural selection and social behavior recent research and new theory. Chiron Press, New York, pp 78–95Google Scholar
  10. Fienberg SE (1980) The analysis of cross-classified categorical data, second edition. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster MS (1983) Disruption, dispersion and dominance in lekbreeding birds. Am Nat 122:53–72Google Scholar
  12. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW (in press) Male and female mating strateges on sage grouse leks. In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387Google Scholar
  14. Hartzler JE (1972) An analysis of sage grouse lek behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  15. Hjorth I (1970) Reproductive behavior in Tetraonidae with special reference to males. Viltrevy 7:381–587Google Scholar
  16. Hupp J (1983) Spring changes in lipid reserves of adult male sage grouse. In: Denney RR (ed) Thirteenth Western States Sage Grouse Workshop Transactions, p 12Google Scholar
  17. Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12Google Scholar
  18. Kirkpatrick M (1985) Evolution of mate choice with direct fitness effects: the demise of the sexy son. Am Nat 125:780–810Google Scholar
  19. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:309–323Google Scholar
  20. Kruijt JP, Vos JG de, Bossema I (1972) The arena system of black grouse Proc XV Int Ornithol congr, pp 399–423Google Scholar
  21. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725Google Scholar
  22. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226Google Scholar
  23. Lill A (1974) Sexual behavior of the lek-forming White-bearded manakin Manacus manacus trinitatis Hartert. Z Tierpsychol 36:1–36Google Scholar
  24. Lill A (1976) Lek behavior in the golden headed manakin (Pipra erythrocephala) in Trinidad (West Indies). Fortschr Verhaltensforsch 18:1–84Google Scholar
  25. Lumsden HG (1968) The displays of the sage grouse. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests Research Report (Wildlife) 83:1–94Google Scholar
  26. O'Donald P (1980) Genetic models of sexual selection. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Oring LW (1982) Avian mating systems. In: Farner D, King J, Parkes K (eds) Avian Biology, vol VI. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Patterson RL (1952) Mating behavior of the sage grouse. Auk 39:477–498Google Scholar
  29. Searey WA (1979) Sexual selection and body size of male rewinged blackbirds. Evolution 33:649–661Google Scholar
  30. Wiley RH (1973a) Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus. Anim Behav Mongr 6:85–169Google Scholar
  31. Wiley RH (1973b) The strut display of male sage grouse: a “fixed” action pattern. Behavior 47:129–152Google Scholar
  32. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. Gibson
    • 1
  • J. W. Bradbury
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, C-016University of California at San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations