2013
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL AND EXTRA-PAIR MATING ON SEXUAL SELECTION IN BLUE TITS (CYANISTES CAERULEUS)

Abstract: The contribution of extra-pair paternity (EPP) to sexual selection has received considerable attention, particularly in socially monogamous species. However, the importance of EPP remains difficult to assess quantitatively, especially when many extra-pair young have unknown sires. Here, we combine measurements of the opportunity for selection (I), the opportunity for sexual selection (I S ), and the strength of selection on mating success (Bateman gradient, β SS ) with a novel simulation of random mating tailo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
37
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 113 publications
3
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regardless of the behavioural mechanism, our results support the hypothesis that the perceived risk of predation influences levels of extra‐pair paternity. This is relevant because extra‐pair paternity can lead to greater variation in mating success between males, which is the basis for sexual selection to act (Andersson, ; Griffith et al, ; Schlicht & Kempenaers, ; Westneat & Stewart, ). Recent work has shown that the perceived risk of predation can have substantial effects on prey species by suppressing their reproductive success, and the non‐consumptive effects of predators thus represent a significant selection pressure (Basso & Richner, ; Ghalambor et al, ; Hua et al, ; LaManna & Martin, ; Sheriff et al, ; Zanette et al, , but see Santema, Valcu, Clinchy, Zanette, & Kempenaers, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of the behavioural mechanism, our results support the hypothesis that the perceived risk of predation influences levels of extra‐pair paternity. This is relevant because extra‐pair paternity can lead to greater variation in mating success between males, which is the basis for sexual selection to act (Andersson, ; Griffith et al, ; Schlicht & Kempenaers, ; Westneat & Stewart, ). Recent work has shown that the perceived risk of predation can have substantial effects on prey species by suppressing their reproductive success, and the non‐consumptive effects of predators thus represent a significant selection pressure (Basso & Richner, ; Ghalambor et al, ; Hua et al, ; LaManna & Martin, ; Sheriff et al, ; Zanette et al, , but see Santema, Valcu, Clinchy, Zanette, & Kempenaers, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study of the hermaphroditic snail, Physa acuta , found significant covariances between different components of male reproductive success [28]. Similarly, studies of passerine birds forming social pair bonds have quantified the covariance between within- and extra-pair components of male reproductive success, demonstrating that such covariance can represent a substantial source of variation in male reproductive success in some populations [70,71], but less so in others [48,72]. In part, differences between these studies are likely to reflect a combination of biological factors, such as population size, patterns of variation in polyandry, mate availability and clutch size, and future studies should seek to resolve how Bateman principles can be modulated by these factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, any conclusions remain necessarily restricted to the specific and uncontrolled conditions that prevailed during the study period. Field studies make it almost impossible to obtain complete information on offspring and their parents – sires in particular (Schlicht & Kempenaers ; Jones ; but see Rodriguez‐Munoz et al . ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, focusing on between‐sex comparisons of the variance in reproductive success ( I ), Pélissié, Jarne & David () developed a procedure to estimate the expected value of the (binomial) sampling error that results from incomplete offspring sampling, and to adjust the estimated variances accordingly. Finally, Schlicht & Kempenaers () developed an approach for open populations to check the sensitivity of sexual selection metrics to undetected sires (via sibship analysis) and to compare observed values against expected sexual selection metrics under random mating (similar approach in Baena & Macías‐Ordóñez ).…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%