Behavioral Ecology Vol. 10 No. 1: 68-72
© 1999 International Society for Behavioral Ecology
Offspring sex ratio is related to male body size in the great tit (Parus major)
a Zoology Department, University of Bern, CH-3032 Hinterkappelen Switzerland b Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Boterhoeksestraat 22, PO Box 40, 6666 ZG Heteren The Netherlands
Address correspondence to M. Kölliker or H. Richner. E-mail: mathias.koelliker{at}esh.unibe.ch richner{at}esh.unibe.ch.
Sex allocation theory predicts that the allocation of resources to male and female function should depend on potential fitness gain realized through investment in either sex. In the great tit (Parus major), a monogamous passerine bird, male resourceholding potential (RHP) and fertilization success both depend on male body size (e.g., tarsus length) and plumage traits (e.g., breast stripe size). It is predicted that the proportion of sons in a brood should increase both with male body size and plumage traits, assuming that these traits show a father—offspring correlation. This was confirmed in our study: the proportion of sons in the brood increased significantly with male tarsus length and also, though not significantly, with the size of the breast stripe. A sex ratio bias in relation to male tarsus length was already present in the eggs because (1) the bias was similar among broods with and without mortality before the nestlings' sex was determined, and (2) the bias remained significant when the proportion of sons in the clutch was conservatively estimated, assuming that differential mortality before sex determination caused the bias. The bias was still present among recruits. The assumption of a father—offspring correlation was confirmed for tarsus length. Given that both RHP and fertilization success of male great tits depend on body size, and size of father and offspring is correlated, the sex ratio bias may be adaptive.
Key words: body size, great tits, Parus major, resource holding potential, sex allocation, sexual selection..
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H.M. Salomons, C. Dijkstra, and S. Verhulst Strong but variable associations between social dominance and clutch sex ratio in a colonial corvid Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2008; 19(2): 417 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Korsten, C. M. Lessells, A. C. Mateman, M. van der Velde, and J. Komdeur Primary sex ratio adjustment to experimentally reduced male UV attractiveness in blue tits Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 539 - 546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Dreiss, M. Richard, F. Moyen, J. White, A.P. Moller, and E. Danchin Sex ratio and male sexual characters in a population of blue tits, Parus caeruleus Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.N. Rutstein, H.E. Gorman, K.E. Arnold, L. Gilbert, K.J. Orr, A. Adam, R. Nager, and J.A. Graves Sex allocation in response to paternal attractiveness in the zebra finch Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2005; 16(4): 763 - 769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Rathburn and R. Montgomerie Offspring sex ratios correlate with pair-male condition in a cooperatively breeding fairy-wren Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2005; 16(1): 41 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. L. F. Martins Sex-specific growth rates in zebra finch nestlings: a possible mechanism for sex ratio adjustment Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2004; 15(1): 174 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. R. Oddie and C. Reim Egg sex ratio and paternal traits: using within-individual comparisons Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2002; 13(4): 503 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. I. Leech, I. R. Hartley, I. R. K. Stewart, S. C. Griffith, and T. Burke No effect of parental quality or extrapair paternity on brood sex ratio in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus) Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2001; 12(6): 674 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Radford and J. K. Blakey Is variation in brood sex ratios adaptive in the great tit (Parus major)? Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2000; 11(3): 294 - 298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|