Author
Abstract
Forced copulation is a male reproductive strategy in a variety of animals but rare among avian species, with the notable exceptions of waterfowl (family Anatidae) and at least 1 passerine species, the New Zealand stitchbird or hihi Notiomystis cincta. The presence of forced extrapair copulation in these species challenges the perception that females control extrapair copulations (EPC) across avian species. A noteworthy behavioral discrepancy is believed to exist between waterfowl and passerines in that female waterfowl are widely assumed to always resist EPC, whereas female passerines often pursue EPC. This difference in female behavior between avian groups is perplexing in light of the fact that unconditional resistance to EPC exposes female waterfowl to risk of serious injury. I consider 5 hypotheses to explain the female unconditional resistance strategy in waterfowl and focus on the controversial idea that resistance could represent a female mate choice strategy in a system dominated by male force. This resistance as mate choice hypothesis relies on indirect benefits to females through biasing paternity in favor of manipulative or genetically high-quality males and predicts that unconditional resistance versus conditional acceptance of EPC reflects the presence or absence of forced copulation in the mating system. Although indirect selection is widely regarded as unimportant in the evolution of female defensive traits when direct costs are large, I argue that indirect selection could nonetheless play an important role in the evolution of female strategies under sexual conflict. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Margo Adler, 2009.
"Sexual conflict in waterfowl: why do females resist extrapair copulations?,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(1), pages 182-192.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2009:i:1:p:182-192
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:21:y:2009:i:1:p:182-192. 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.