Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on June 22, 2005
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(5):957-960; doi:10.1093/beheco/ari061
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/5/957    most recent
ari061v1
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 (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rutstein, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Tomkins, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rutstein, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Tomkins, J. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Forum

Experience counts: lessons from studies of differential allocation

Alison N. Rutstein, Lucy Gilbert and Joseph L. Tomkins

School of Biology, Bute Medical Building, University of St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TS, UK

Address correspondence to A.N. Rutstein, who is now at the School of BEES, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. E-mail: a.rutstein@unsw.edu.au.

Received 14 September 2004; revised 9 March 2005; accepted 5 May 2005.

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   INTRODUCTION
 
One of the most fundamental decisions that female birds face after pairing is how much to invest in a particular reproductive attempt (Zhang et al., 1996Go). According to differential allocation (DA) theory, females are able to adjust their investment according to factors that affect the value of the breeding attempt, such as the attractiveness of their mate. A higher value is placed on matings with attractive males because of direct and/or indirect fitness benefits (Andersson, 1982Go; Hamilton and Zuk, 1982Go; Hoelzer, 1989Go; Norris, 1990Go), and therefore females should be willing to bear greater costs and invest more in offspring fathered by such males (Burley, 1988Go; Sheldon, 2000Go). However, in direct contrast is the compensation hypothesis, in which a female is predicted to compensate for reduced offspring viability when paired to a lower quality male, and the reverse allocation pattern occurs (Bluhm and Gowaty, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Example 1: manipulations of male attractiveness
Example 2: manipulation of diet

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
I. I. Ratikainen and H. Kokko
Differential allocation and compensation: who deserves the silver spoon?
Behav. Ecol., November 23, 2009; (2009) arp168v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
E. Bolund, H. Schielzeth, and W. Forstmeier
Compensatory investment in zebra finches: females lay larger eggs when paired to sexually unattractive males
Proc R Soc B, February 22, 2009; 276(1657): 707 - 715.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]