Author
Listed:
- Gaute Bø Grønstøl
- Ingvar Byrkjedal
- Øyvind Fiksen
Abstract
The rationale behind the polygyny threshold model is that the breeding situation quality (BSQ) males have to offer females varies, and that differences in BSQ offset females' costs of sharing with other females, thus favoring polygynous settling. It predicts that the first chosen territories become polygynous first, and that breeding success of secondary and contemporary monogamous females is similar. This is not generally found. Testing of the polygyny threshold model (PTM) assumes that females are equal competitors and distribute ideally free around available breeding resources, a condition probably not often met. If sharing a male is costly, and competitors differ in quality, weaker individuals should experience degrees of competitive exclusion. Setting female competitive abilities proportional to arrival order, we use an individual-based interference-competition model to examine settlement patterns. Shifts in the ratio of variance in interfemale competitiveness to interterritorial differences in BSQ result in various settlement patterns, with different predictions concerning settlement order and fitness returns. We find support for the novel predictions from data on northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), and blue tit (Parus caeruleus). We suggest that before testing polygyny predictions, an evaluation of the settlement sequence should be made, which may help to generate more accurate predictions. We argue that violation of the "equal female" assumption may explain much of the discrepancy between predictions and empirical findings in previous tests of the PTM, and that secondary females in general have lower success than do monogamous breeders because they are of lower quality. Copyright 2003.
Suggested Citation
Gaute Bø Grønstøl & Ingvar Byrkjedal & Øyvind Fiksen, 2003.
"Predicting polygynous settlement while incorporating varying female competitive strength,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 14(2), pages 257-267, March.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:2:p:257-267
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:2:p:257-267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.