4.5 Article

Breeding density, cuckoldry risk and copulation behaviour during the fertile period in raptors: a comparative analysis

Journal

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Volume 67, Issue -, Pages 1067-1076

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.10.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extrapair copulations (EPCs) and fertilizations (EPFs) occur in many socially monogamous bird species, including raptors. In this group of species, males invest heavily in reproduction through the feeding of female and young, so the cost of cuckoldry is particularly high. The feeding of females by males, characteristic of most species, conflicts with mate guarding, so raptors are expected to use frequent within-pair copulations (WPCs) for paternity assurance. In this study, I reviewed information on copulation behaviour of diurnal raptors, and used regression analyses and phylogenetic comparative analyses to investigate relations between density, EPC frequency and WPC behaviour. EPCs occurred in most raptor species studied (68%, N = 19), mostly during the presumed fertile period of females. EPC frequency, measured as the percentage of females engaging in EPC but not the percentage of extrapair copulations, was positively related to breeding density. The rate and relative duration of WPCs were also positively related to breeding density, but only WPC rate was positively related to EPC frequency (percentage of females). Frequently copulating species had relatively larger testes, underlying higher sperm production capacities. The results support the hypotheses that sperm competition intensity increases with breeding density, and that male raptors rely on frequent copulations to ensure paternity. Despite the risk, EPFs rarely occurred in raptors, suggesting efficient paternity guards. (C) 2004 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available