2015
DOI: 10.1642/auk-14-67.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Displaying to females may lower male foraging time and vigilance in a lekking bird

Abstract: Males of many species use courtship behavior to attract mates. However, by doing so males may face the associated costs of increased energetic expenditure, reduced foraging time, and elevated predation risk. We investigated the costs of display in lekking male Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus). We used lek-wide scan sampling to study how males allocated time among courtship display (''dancing''), agonism, foraging, and inactivity in relation to female numbers both within and across days. We also a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
22
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Eavesdropping antagonists are known to influence the evolution of signals and signaling behavior and senders as well as receivers may be forced to modify their signals, signaling behavior, and mate choice to reduce the unfavorable effects of eavesdropping (Bradbury & Vehrencamp, ; Hughes, Kelley, & Banks, ; Zuk & Kolluru, ). Long‐distance acoustic signals are particularly prone to exploitation by eavesdropping predators and parasites, and many studies have investigated their effects on prey signal design and signaling behavior most notably in birds, frogs, katydids, and crickets (Beckers & Wagner, ; Belwood & Morris, ; Cowles & Gibson, ; Lehmann & Heller, ; Tuttle & Ryan, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eavesdropping antagonists are known to influence the evolution of signals and signaling behavior and senders as well as receivers may be forced to modify their signals, signaling behavior, and mate choice to reduce the unfavorable effects of eavesdropping (Bradbury & Vehrencamp, ; Hughes, Kelley, & Banks, ; Zuk & Kolluru, ). Long‐distance acoustic signals are particularly prone to exploitation by eavesdropping predators and parasites, and many studies have investigated their effects on prey signal design and signaling behavior most notably in birds, frogs, katydids, and crickets (Beckers & Wagner, ; Belwood & Morris, ; Cowles & Gibson, ; Lehmann & Heller, ; Tuttle & Ryan, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our framework focuses on clustering populations where monitoring of a species occurs (e.g., sites, routes, leks, and breeding grounds), and whether information about connectivity and exchange of individuals, habitat needs, and movements exists. Therefore, many lekking species (e.g., fish, Nelson ; mammals, Deutsch , Bro‐Jorgensen ; birds, Cowles and Gibson ) are obvious candidates. Additionally, our methods could be used to develop monitoring frameworks for migratory species with non‐overlapping seasonal ranges or for species with distinct breeding and fawning/calving grounds (Nicholson et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the maximum number of males present during the sampling period to account for potential effects of male lek attendance on male lekking behavior and on female lek attendance, and the maximum number of females present during the sampling period to account for potential effects of female lek attendance on male lekking behavior in our analyses (Gibson 1996;Cowles & Gibson 2015). We used the maximum number of males present during the sampling period to account for potential effects of male lek attendance on male lekking behavior and on female lek attendance, and the maximum number of females present during the sampling period to account for potential effects of female lek attendance on male lekking behavior in our analyses (Gibson 1996;Cowles & Gibson 2015).…”
Section: Lek Attendancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…To account for repeated measures at each lek within an observation day, we included a lek-specific day term as a random effect (e.g., lek1-day1 or lek2-day1). We also considered date, expressed as ordinal day, as a covariate to control for seasonal variation in lekking activity (Robel 1964(Robel , 1967, time (minutes after sunrise) that the sampling period started (hereafter 'time of sample') to account for daily activity patterns (Cowles & Gibson 2015), and wind speed (calculated as the average wind speed at the beginning and end of the sampling period) to control for effects of wind on lekking activity (Drummer et al 2011). We considered three different functions of female and male lek attendance (linear, cubic, and quadratic) using mean centered data and selected the best-fitting model using a chi-square test (p < 0.05).…”
Section: Male Lekking Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%