Author
Listed:
- Kyle Hamish Elliott
- Anthony J. Gaston
- Douglas Crump
Abstract
The presence of sex-stereotyped behavior in monomorphic animals, where there are no sexual differences in form to account for sexual differences in function, is often attributed to intraspecific competition or to differential parental investment. The possibility that the use of different behavioral strategies by each parent may increase reproductive success for both partners through risk partitioning is seldom considered. We studied thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia), where the male exclusively feeds the offspring during the late chick rearing. During the period of biparental care, males fed on "risk-averse" prey (consistent across time and space; unitized risk = 0.29), whereas females fed on "risk-prone" prey (risk = 0.59). Males fed at night at 1 colony, during the day at 2 colonies, and there was no pattern at another colony. We suggest that these differences reflect the availability of risk-prone prey. Modeling suggested that mixed-risk pairs had higher success than "risky" or "riskless" pairs. Males accumulated reserves and reduced chick provisioning just prior to fledging. Thus, sex-specific patterns at 1 period (male-only care during postfledging) may have led to sex-specific patterns at earlier periods through the need for specialization in foraging habits and risk. We propose that risk partitioning may contribute to the prevalence of sex-specific behaviors in monomorphic animals and that patterns are likely context specific rather than species specific. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Kyle Hamish Elliott & Anthony J. Gaston & Douglas Crump, 2010.
"Sex-specific behavior by a monomorphic seabird represents risk partitioning,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(5), pages 1024-1032.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2010:i:5:p:1024-1032
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:2010:i:5:p:1024-1032. 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.