Author
Listed:
- Tamás Székely
- Innes C. Cuthill
- Stephen Yezerinac
- Richard Griffiths
- János Kis
Abstract
How and why do the mating opportunities of males and females differ in natural population of animals? Previously we showed that females have higher mating opportunities than males in the Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus. Both parents incubate the eggs, and males provide more brood care than females; thus it is not obvious why the females find new mates sooner than the males. In this study we investigated whether the sex-biased mating opportunities stem from biased offspring sex ratios. We determined the sex of newly hatched, precocial chicks using CHD gene markers. Among fully sexed broods, 0.461 ± 0.024 (SE) of chicks (454 chicks in 158 broods) were male, and this sex ratio was not significantly different from unity. The proportion of males at hatching decreased significantly over the breeding season, which occurred consistently in all 3 years of the study. Large chicks were more likely to be males than females. Neither parental age nor body size of male and female parents was related to brood sex ratio. We also sexed a number of chicks that were caught after they left their nest (range of estimated ages 0--17 days) and found that the proportion of males increased with brood age. This relationship remained highly significant when controlling statistically for hatching date. As brood size decreased due to mortality after the chicks left their nest, these results suggest that the mortality of daughters was higher than that of the sons shortly after hatching. Taken together, our results show that the female-biased mating opportunities in the Kentish plover are not due to biased brood sex ratio at hatching but, at least in part, are due to female-biased chick mortality soon after hatching. Copyright 2004.
Suggested Citation
Tamás Székely & Innes C. Cuthill & Stephen Yezerinac & Richard Griffiths & János Kis, 2004.
"Brood sex ratio in the Kentish plover,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(1), pages 58-62, January.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:1:p:58-62
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:15:y:2004:i:1:p:58-62. 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.