Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5a, b.

References

  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 33–77

  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  3. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berry JF, Shine R (1980) Sexual size dimorphism and sexual selection in turtles (Order Testudines). Oecologia 44:185–191

    Google 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 50:295–311

    Article  Google 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 19–80

  7. Borgia G, Pruett-Jones SG, Pruett-Jones MA (1985) The evolution of bower-building and the assessment of male quality. Z Tierpsychol 67:225–236

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass

  9. Ernst CH, Barbour RW (1989) Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

  10. Field A (2000) Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. Sage, Milwaukee

  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)

  12. Gist DH, Jones JM (1989) Sperm storage within the oviduct of turtles. J Morphol 199:379–384

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gromko MH, Newport MEA, Kortier MG (1984) Sperm dependence of female receptivity to remating in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 38:1273–1282

    Google Scholar 

  15. Halliday T (1978) Sexual selection and mate choice. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 180–213

  16. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do female mate multiply? A review of genetic benefits. Biol Rev Cambridge Philos Soc 75:21–64

    Article  CAS  Google 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 10:304–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuchling G (1999) The reproductive biology of Chelonia. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  19. Loman J, Madsen T, Hakansson T (1988) Increased fitness from multiple mating, and genetic heterogeneity: a model of a possible mechanism. Oikos 52:69–72

    Google Scholar 

  20. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T (1992) Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355:440–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T (1993) Determinants of mating success in male adders, Vipera berus. Anim Behav 45:491–499

    Article  Google 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, Ontario

  23. Mrosowsky N (1972) Spectrographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica 28:256–258

    Google 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 Diego

  25. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T (1996) Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585

    CAS  Google 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 264:455–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pearse DE, Avise JC (2001) Turtle mating systems: behavior, sperm storage, and genetic paternity. J Hered 92:206–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pearse DE, Janzen FJ, Avise JC (2000) Genetic markers substantiate long-term storage and utilization of sperm by female painted turtles. Heredity 86:378–384

    Article  Google 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 51:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sokal RR, Rolhlf FJ (1980) Biometry. Freeman, New York

  32. Swingland I, Stubbs D (1985) The ecology of a Mediterranean tortoise (Testudo hermanni): reproduction. J Zool Lond 205:595–610

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Trivers R (1972) Paternal investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BG (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179

  35. Weaver WGJ (1970) Courtship and combat behavior in Gopherus berlanderi. Bull Fla State Mus 15:1–43

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wetton JH, Parkin DT (1991) An association between fertility and cuckoldry in the house sparrow, Passer domesticus. Proc R Soc Lond B 245:227–233

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yasui Y (1997) A "good sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zahavi A (1977a) The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol 67:603–605

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zahavi A (1977b) The testing of the bond. Anim Behav 25:246–247

    Google 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 42:501–503

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle. A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  42. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry. I. Intragenomic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry. II. Post copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Sacchi.

Additional information

Communicated by T. Czeschlik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sacchi, R., Galeotti, P., Fasola, M. et al. Vocalizations and courtship intensity correlate with mounting success in marginated tortoises Testudo marginata . Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55, 95–102 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-003-0685-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Call features
  • Courtship intensity
  • Mating success
  • Marginated tortoise
  • Testudo marginata