Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior

Living Edition
| Editors: Jennifer Vonk, Todd Shackelford

Polygyny Threshold Model

  • Gaute GrønstølEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_460-1

Synonyms

Definition

The polygyny threshold model is a framework proposed to describe optimal female mate choice in resource defense polygyny systems. The polygyny threshold is defined as the increase in breeding resources required to offset costs of sharing a territory with another female.

Introduction

Until the 1960s, polygyny was largely considered a result of an excess of female to male breeders (Searcy and Yasukawa 1989). This explanation was found inadequate as it became clear that it is fairly common to see territorial males remaining unmated despite courtship efforts, while neighboring males mate polygynously. In the mid-1960s, the polygyny threshold model (hereafter the PTM) was proposed as an adaptive explanation to this phenomenon (Orians 1969; Verner 1964; Verner and Willson 1966).

Since its inception, the PTM has been applied on a wide range of organisms that exhibit social resource defense polygamy, including birds, mammals, fishes, reptiles,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Altmann, S. A., Wagner, S. S., & Lenington, S. (1977). Two models for the evolution of polygyny. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2(4), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, N. B. (1989). Sexual conflict and the polygamy threshold. Animal Behaviour, 38, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davies, N. B., & Houston, A. I. (1986). Reproductive success of dunnocks, Prunella modularis, in a variable mating system. 2. Conflicts of interest among breeding adults. Journal of Animal Ecology, 55(1), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, N. B., Krebs, J. R., & West, S. A. (2012). An introduction to behavioural ecology (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Drent, R. H., & Daan, S. (1980). The prudent parent – Energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Ardea, 68(1–4), 225–252.Google Scholar
  7. Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and evolution of mating systems. Science, 197(4300), 215–223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Garson, P. J., Pleszczynska, W. K., & Holm, C. H. (1981). The polygyny threshold model – A reassessment. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59(6), 902–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gowaty, P. A. (1981). An extension of the Orians-Verner-Willson model to account for mating systems besides polygyny. American Naturalist, 118(6), 851–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grønstøl, G. (2003). Mate-sharing costs in polygynous Northern Lapwings Vanellus vanellus. Ibis, 145(2), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grønstøl, G., Byrkjedal, I., & Fiksen, O. (2003). Predicting polygynous settlement while incorporating varying female competitive strength. Behavioral Ecology, 14(2), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grønstøl, G., Blomqvist, D., Pauliny, A., & Wagner, R. H. (2015). Kin selection and polygyny: Can relatedness lower the polygyny threshold? Royal Society Open Science, 2(6), 140409.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). Genetical evolution of social behaviour I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Krebs, J. R., & Davies, N. B. (1993). An introduction to behavioural ecology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Leonard, M. L. (1990). Polygyny in marsh wrens: Asynchronous settlement as an alternative to the polygyny-threshold model. American Naturalist, 136(4), 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mays, H. L., & Hill, G. E. (2004). Choosing mates: Good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(10), 554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orians, G. H. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. American Naturalist, 103(934), 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parker, G. A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum (Eds.), Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (pp. 123–166). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Perrins, C. M. (1970). Timing of birds breeding seasons. Ibis, 112(2), 242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pribil, S. (2000). Experimental evidence for the cost of polygyny in the red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus. Behaviour, 137, 1153–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenqvist, G., & Berglund, A. (1992). Is female sexual-behavior a neglected topic? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 7(6), 174–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Searcy, W. A., & Yasukawa, K. (1989). Alternative models of territorial polygyny in birds. American Naturalist, 134(3), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slagsvold, T., & Lifjeld, J. T. (1994). Polygyny in birds – The role of competition between females for male parental care. American Naturalist, 143(1), 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Verner, J. (1964). Evolution of polygamy in long-billed marsh wren. Evolution, 18(2), 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Verner, J., & Willson, M. F. (1966). Influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology, 47(1), 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weatherhead, P. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1979). Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold – The sexy son hypothesis. American Naturalist, 113(2), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Webster, M. S. (1991). Male parental care and polygyny in birds. American Naturalist, 137(2), 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wittenberger, J. F. (1981). Time – A hidden dimension in the polygyny threshold-model. American Naturalist, 118(6), 803–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wittenberger, J. F., & Tilson, R. L. (1980). The evolution of monogamy – Hypotheses and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 197–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural History MuseumUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Section editors and affiliations

  • David Hanbury
    • 1
  1. 1.Averett UniversityDanvilleUSA