Skip Navigation



Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on January 12, 2005
Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/ari018
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/2/442    most recent
ari018v1
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kalmbach, E.
Right arrow Articles by Griffiths, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kalmbach, E.
Right arrow Articles by Griffiths, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology © International Society for Behavioral Ecology; all rights reserved.
Received May 27, 2004
Revised September 17, 2004
Accepted October 18, 2004

Article

Sex-biased environmental sensitivity: natural and experimental evidence from a bird species with larger females

Ellen Kalmbach 1*, Robert W. Furness, 1, and Richard Griffiths 1

1 Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ellen Kalmbach, E-mail: e.kalmbach{at}biol.rug.nl


  Abstract

The larger sex is often more vulnerable, in terms of development and survival, to poor conditions during early life. Differential vulnerability has implications for parental investment strategies such as sex ratio theory. When males are larger, it is not possible to separate the effects of larger size per se and other aspects of the male phenotype on vulnerability. Furthermore, offspring competition might favor the larger sex and thereby mask intrinsic, size-related effects. We studied sex-specific mortality in a bird species with reversed size dimorphism, the great skua Stercorarius skua, under natural and experimentally created poor conditions. Small eggs from extended laying sequences were used to create poor early conditions for the offspring, which were raised as singletons. Daughters had a lower survival in all treatment groups. Survival in natural broods was additionally affected by hatch date and position. Hatch weight was not different for sons and daughters but was lower in experimental than in natural nests. In natural nests, daughters fledged 10% heavier than sons, but in experimental nests, they did not reach a higher mass. The average survival difference between sons and daughters was not increased in experimental broods. However, hatch weight had a strong sex-specific effect. Very light females never survived, and survival probability of daughters increased with increasing hatch weight. By contrast, survival of sons over the same range of hatch weights was not related to weight. These findings support the hypothesis that larger (final) size per se is related to sex-specific offspring vulnerability during early life.

Keywords: egg quality; environmental sensitivity; lesser black-backed gull; sex-biased mortality; sex ratio.
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
J. J. Verspoor, O. P. Love, E. Rowland, E. H. Chin, and T. D. Williams
Sex-specific development of avian flight performance under experimentally altered rearing conditions
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2007; 18(6): 967 - 973.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
J. A. Fargallo, V. Polo, L. de Neve, J. Martin, J. A. Davila, and M. Soler
Hatching order and size-dependent mortality in relation to brood sex ratio composition in chinstrap penguins
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2006; 17(5): 772 - 778.
[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.