Abstract

Despite a great number of studies on extra-pair paternity in birds, the actual roles of males and females in extra-pair contacts is poorly understood, as detailed behavioural studies comparing the reproductive performance of the two sexes prior to egg laying are relatively scarce. Here, we investigated mating behaviour (copulations and aggressive interactions), time budget and body condition (size-adjusted body mass and baseline corticosterone level) in the little auk (Alle alle), a monogamous and highly colonial, Arctic seabird. We performed the study in a large breeding colony of the little auk in Hornsund (Spitsbergen). We found that the males frequently attempted extra-pair copulations (EPCs), although these contacts were almost always unsuccessful, mostly because of the females’ rejection behaviour. These results clearly indicate that genetic monogamy is maintained through female control. Nevertheless, males tried to protect their paternity by staying in close proximity to their females and aggressively intervening when their mates became involved in EPCs. Compared to females, males also spent more time in the colony guarding nest sites. Despite the apparent sex differences in the time budget and frequency of aggressive interactions, body condition was similar in the two sexes, indicating comparable parental investments during the mating period.

Highlights

  • Since Lack’s (1968) study, birds have been viewed as a unique animal group, in which monogamy is the prevailing breeding system

  • To evaluate the possible mechanisms responsible for the limited success of extra-pair copulations in the little auk, we investigated the pre-laying behaviour and colony attendance pattern of males and females

  • The total time spent by the birds in the colony was similar throughout the whole study period (F7,238=1.87, p= 0.08)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since Lack’s (1968) study, birds have been viewed as a unique animal group, in which monogamy is the prevailing breeding system. It has been widely accepted that this avian monogamous system is not free from sexual conflict (Trivers 1972; Clutton-Brock 1991: Birkhead and Møller 1998; Petrie and Kempenaers 1998; Westneat and Stewart 2003; Akçay and Roughgarden 2007). In contrast, investing in a limited number of large eggs should aim to mate with a top-quality male With such divergent male and female reproductive aims, an apparent conflict is expected to arise in socially monogamous pairs (Trivers 1972; Clutton-Brock 1991; Westneat and Stewart 2003). Viewing the glass as half empty, one can wonder how genetic monogamy is possible in some birds under conditions of such apparent sexual conflict

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call