Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grønstøl, G. B.
Right arrow Articles by Fiksen, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Grønstøl, G. B.
Right arrow Articles by Fiksen, O.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 14 No. 2: 257-267
© 2003 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Predicting polygynous settlement while incorporating varying female competitive strength

Gaute Bø Grønstøla, Ingvar Byrkjedalb and Øyvind Fiksenc

a Department of Zoology, University of Bergen, Allégt. 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway b Museum of Zoology, University of Bergen, Muséplass 3, N-5007 Bergen, Norway c Department of Fisheries and Marine Biology, University of Bergen, Thormøhlensgate 55, N-5008, Bergen, Norway

Address correspondence to G.B. Grønstøl. E-mail: gaute.gronstol{at}zoo.uib.no.

The rationale behind the polygyny threshold model is that the breeding situation quality (BSQ) males have to offer females varies, and that differences in BSQ offset females' costs of sharing with other females, thus favoring polygynous settling. It predicts that the first chosen territories become polygynous first, and that breeding success of secondary and contemporary monogamous females is similar. This is not generally found. Testing of the polygyny threshold model (PTM) assumes that females are equal competitors and distribute ideally free around available breeding resources, a condition probably not often met. If sharing a male is costly, and competitors differ in quality, weaker individuals should experience degrees of competitive exclusion. Setting female competitive abilities proportional to arrival order, we use an individual-based interference-competition model to examine settlement patterns. Shifts in the ratio of variance in interfemale competitiveness to interterritorial differences in BSQ result in various settlement patterns, with different predictions concerning settlement order and fitness returns. We find support for the novel predictions from data on northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), and blue tit (Parus caeruleus). We suggest that before testing polygyny predictions, an evaluation of the settlement sequence should be made, which may help to generate more accurate predictions. We argue that violation of the "equal female" assumption may explain much of the discrepancy between predictions and empirical findings in previous tests of the PTM, and that secondary females in general have lower success than do monogamous breeders because they are of lower quality.

Key words: competition, cost-compensation, mating system, polygyny, settlement order, social dominance.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
G. Hegyi, B. Rosivall, E. Szollosi, R. Hargitai, M. Eens, and J. Torok
A role for female ornamentation in the facultatively polygynous mating system of collared flycatchers
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2007; 18(6): 1116 - 1122.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc R Soc BHome page
T. Huk and W. Winkel
Polygyny and its fitness consequences for primary and secondary female pied flycatchers
Proc R Soc B, July 7, 2006; 273(1594): 1681 - 1688.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.