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 (18)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valera, F.
Right arrow Articles by Kristín, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Valera, F.
Right arrow Articles by Kristín, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 14 No. 3: 403-408
© 2003 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Male shrikes punish unfaithful females

Francisco Valeraa,, Herbert Hoib and Anton Kristínc

a Departamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutierrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain b Konrad Lorenz Institute for Comparative Ethology, Savoyenstr.1a, A 1160 Vienna, Austria c Institute of Forest Ecology of SAS, Sturova 2, Zvolen, SK-960 53, Slovakia

Address correspondence to F. Valera, who is now at Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas (CSIC), General Segura 1, E-04001, Almería, Spain. E-mail: pvalera{at}eeza.csic.es.

The costs to females of participating in extrapair copulations is an interesting but hitherto neglected topic in behavioral ecology. An obvious potential cost to females is male physical sanctions. However, although retaliation and punishment by male partners has been proposed as a basic cost for female extrapair behavior in theory, it has not been experimentally demonstrated. We studied the breeding biology of the lesser gray shrike (Lanius minor) and combined field observations and a field experiment to show that (1) there is a high intrusion rate during the female's fertile period, and extrapair copulations occur in this population; (2) by detaining females during the fertile phase, males were induced to retaliate physically against their partners, thereby increasing costs related to female extrapair behavior; and (3) there were no obvious costs to males of punishing their mates. DNA fingerprinting reveals that extrapair paternity is rare or absent in this population. Although we cannot conclude that monogamy at the genetic level is the result of male retaliation, we do show that male physical sanction is a cost that deceptive females have to assume. Males' strategies based on coercion should be considered when explaining variation in extrapair paternity across species.

Key words: extrapair paternity, genetic monogamy, male coercion, male control, punishment, sexual conflict.


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
H. Kokko and L. J. Morrell
Mate guarding, male attractiveness, and paternity under social monogamy
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2005; 16(4): 724 - 731.
[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.