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 (38)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hasselquist, D.
Right arrow Articles by Sherman, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hasselquist, D.
Right arrow Articles by Sherman, P. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 12 No. 4: 457-466
© 2001 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Social mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in passerine birds

Dennis Hasselquist and Paul W. Sherman

Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Seeley G. Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-2702, USA

Address correspondence to D. Hasselquist, who is now at the Department of Animal Ecology, Lund University, Ecology Building, 223 62 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: dennis.hasselquist{at}zooekol.lu.se .

Two alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain how social and genetic mating systems are interrelated in birds. According to the first (male trade-off) hypothesis, social polygyny should increase extrapair fertilizations because when males concentrate on attracting additional social mates, they cannot effectively protect females with whom they have already paired from being sexually assaulted. According to the second (female choice) hypothesis, social polygyny should decrease extrapair fertilizations because a substantial proportion of females can pair with the male of their choice, and males can effectively guard each mate during her fertile period. To discriminate these alternatives, we comprehensively reviewed information on social mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in temperate zone passerine birds. We found significant inverse relationships between proportions of socially polygynous males and frequencies of extrapair young, whether each species was considered as an independent data point (using parametric statistics) or phylogenetically related species were treated as nonindependent (using contrasts analyses). When social mating systems were dichotomized, extrapair chicks were twice as frequent in monogamous as in polygynous species (0.23 vs. 0.11). We hypothesize that in socially polygynous species, (1) there is less incentive for females and males to pursue extrapair matings and (2) females incur higher costs for sexual infidelity (e.g., due to physical retaliation or reduction of paternal efforts) than in socially monogamous species.

Key words: extrapair paternity, monogamy, passerine birds, phylogenetic contrasts, polygyny, social mating system.


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
C. R. Nielsen, B. Semel, P. W. Sherman, D. F. Westneat, and P. G. Parker
Host-parasite relatedness in wood ducks: patterns of kinship and parasite success
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2006; 17(3): 491 - 496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
A. Fabiani, F. Galimberti, S. Sanvito, and A. R. Hoelzel
Extreme polygyny among southern elephant seals on Sea Lion Island, Falkland Islands
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2004; 15(6): 961 - 969.
[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.