Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 115–123 | Cite as

Tactics, effectiveness and avoidance of mate guarding in the blue-footed booby (Sula nebouxii)

  • Diana Pérez-StaplesEmail author
  • Hugh Drummond
Original Article

Abstract

We examined the dynamics and avoidance of mate guarding, by males and females, in the blue-footed booby, in which the two social mates are usually simultaneously present on the territory but each of them is unmonitored by the other for one-quarter of its time. Both sexes were promiscuous and liable to switch mates. Cuckolded individuals did not increase their overall presence on the territory, but in response to the extra-pair (EP) courtships of their mates, both sexes doubled their rate of intra-pair (IP) courtship and sometimes showed aggression. The male or female's presence depressed the social mate's EP activity, but intra-pair courtship had no such effect, tending even to propitiate that EP activity. Similarly, when females responded to their social mates' EP courtship with approach or aggression, disruption of EP activity was short-lived. Promiscuous females modified their diurnal pattern of attendance, as if attempting to sidestep monitoring by their mates, but cuckolded males matched the modification. Both sexes tended to perform their EP activities at a distance when their mates were present, possibly to evade monitoring or disruption by their mates. Male and female boobies cannot monitor their mates continuously, they do little to facultatively adjust their presence on territory to the risk of infidelity, and their immediate responses to overt infidelity have only the briefest impact; but the information they acquire while monitoring their mates may be critical to constraining their mates' infidelity and also to calibrating their own reproductive investment.

Keywords

Mate guarding Sula nebouxii Extra-pair activity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Mexican Navy for transportation and logistical support and the fishermen of San Blas and Boca de Camichín for their generous support and friendship. The Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología gave permission to work on Isla Isabel. We are very grateful to: B. Ayala, E. Carrillo, J. Contreras, R. Hernández, L. Lomas, A. López, M. López, A. Mancera, J. Meraz, J. Morales, C. Rodríguez, I. Salvador, O. Salvatore, “el Tepo”, C. Wiley and G. Woolrich, for help with field work. This research was financed by a Kathleen S. Anderson Award and an E. Alexander Bergstrom Memorial Award given to D. P.-S. and a CONACyT Grant (4722-N9407) to H. D. M. Osorio-Beristain, C. Macias, J. Osorno, R. Macias, F. Ornelas and C. Cordero provided helpful comments. This article is based on D. P.-S.'s MSc thesis at the Instituto de Ecología, UNAM

References

  1. Baltz AP, Clark AB (1997) Extra-pair courtship behaviour of male budgerigars and the effect of an audience. Anim Behav 53:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrows EM (1995) Animal behavior desk reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  3. Black JM (1996) Introduction: pair bonds and partnerships. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  4. Birkhead T, Møller A (1992) Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Clarkson K, Reynolds MD, Koenig WD (1992) Copulation and mate guarding in the colonial yellow-billed magpie Pica nutalli and a comparison with the solitary black-billed magpie P. pica. Behaviour 121:110–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castillo A, Chávez Peon C (1983) Ecología reproductiva e influencia del comportamiento en el control del número de crías en el bobo de patas azules Sula nebouxii en la Isla Isabel, Nayarit. BSc Thesis, National Autonomous University of MexicoGoogle Scholar
  7. Creighton E (2000) Female mate guarding: no evidence in a socially monogamous species. Anim Behav 59:201–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell MA, Oring LW (1989) Extra-pair mating in the spotted sandpiper: a female mate acquisition tactic. Anim Behav 38:675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies NB (1985) Cooperation and conflict among dunnocks (Prunella modularis), in a variable mating system. Anim Behav 33:628–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB (2000) Cheating on your own kind. In: Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickinson JL (1997) Male detention affects extra-pair copulation frequency and pair behaviour in western bluebirds. Anim Behav 53:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emlen ST, Wrege PH (1986) Forced copulations and intraspecific parasitism: two cost of social living in the white-fronted bee-eater. Ethology 71:2–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eens M, Pinxten R (1995) Inter-sexual conflicts over copulations in the European starling: evidence for the female mate guarding hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guerra M, Drummond H (1995) Reversed sexual dimorphism and parental care: minimal division of labour in the blue-footed booby. Behaviour 132:479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gowaty PA (1995) Battles of the sexes and origins of monogamy. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  16. Griffith SC, Lyon BE, Montgomerie R (2004) Quasi-parasitism in birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gladstone DE (1979) Promiscuity in monogamous colonial birds. Am Nat 114:545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton WD (1990) Mate choice near or far. Am Zool 30:341–352Google Scholar
  19. Hatch SA (1987) Copulation and mate guarding in the northern fulmar. Auk 104:450–461Google Scholar
  20. Heg D, Ens BJ, Burke T, Kruijt JP (1993) Why does the typically monogamous oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) engage in extra-pair copulations? Behaviour 126:247–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter FM, Petrie M, Otonen M, Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1993) Why do females copulate repeatedly with one male? TREE 7:21–26Google Scholar
  22. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt AA (1992) Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lumpkin S (1981) Avoidance of cuckoldry in birds: the role of the female. Anim Behav 29:303–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson JB (1978) The Sulidae: Gannets and boobies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Osorio-Beristain M, Drummond H (1998) Non-aggressive mate guarding by the blue-footed booby: a balance of female and male control. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osorio-Beristain M, Drummond H (2001) Male boobies expel eggs when paternity is in doubt. Behav Ecol 12:16–21Google Scholar
  27. Petrie M (1986) Reproductive strategies of male and female moorhens (Gallinula chloropus) In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 43–63Google Scholar
  28. Petrie M (1992) Copulation frequency in birds; why do females copulate more than once with the same male? Anim Behav 44:790–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sheldon BC (1994) Sperm competition in the chaffinch: the role of the female. Anim Behav 47:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slagsvold T, Lifjeld JT (1997) Incomplete female knowledge of male quality may explain variation in extra-pair paternity in birds. Behaviour 134:353–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith SM (1988) Extra-pair copulations in black-capped chickadees: the role of the female. Behaviour 107:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stamps J (1998) Territoriality and the non-passive female. In: Gowaty PA (ed) Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections and frontiers. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 249–319Google Scholar
  33. Stamps J, Calderón-de Anda M, Pérez C, Drummond H (2003) Collaborative tactics for nestsite selection by pairs of blue footed boobies, Sula nebouxii. Behaviour 139:1383–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Summers K (1989) Sexual selection and intra-female competition in the green poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus. Anim Behav 37:797–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner RH (1991) Pair-bond formation in the razorbill. Wilson Bull 103:682–685Google Scholar
  36. Wagner RH (1992a) Behavioural and breeding-habitat related aspects of sperm competition in razorbills. Behaviour 123:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner RH (1992b) Mate guarding by monogamous female razorbills. Anim Behav 44:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westneat DF (1993) Polygyny and extra-par fertilizations in eastern red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Behav Ecol 4:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yasukawa K, Searcy WA (1982) Aggression in female red-winged blackbirds: a strategy to ensure male parental investment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de EcologíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxicoMéxico
  2. 2.Instituto de Ecología A.C.XalapaVer. México

Personalised recommendations