Female house wrens value the nest cavity more than exclusive access to males during conflicts with female intruders

in Behaviour
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

Individuals should fight hardest when they stand to lose the most. Whereas males frequently compete for fertile females, females more often compete for high quality males, male care, or resources required to breed. We asked whether established, territorial female house wrens (Troglodytes aedon) challenged by simulated female intruders fight as if they place more value on retaining (1) their nesting cavity or (2) exclusive access to other benefits offered by males. We randomly assigned house wren pairs to receive one or three nest boxes and then assayed female aggression. The relative costs to losing differed between box treatments. For one-box females, the risk of losing the cavity and territory was higher. For three-box females, the risk of losing the cavity may be lower because intruders may be able to settle as secondary females in the supplemental boxes. In this situation, females would lose exclusive access to males and their territories but would still retain the male’s assistance rearing offspring since male house wrens favour their oldest brood. We found that one-box females were significantly more aggressive. This response may be adaptive, as females that switched territories between broods were significantly more likely to lose their entire nest prior to hatching than females that retained the same territory. We interpret our results to mean that female house wrens value the nest cavity more than other benefits from exclusive access to males and their territories. This work contributes to a body of evidence that females often compete for resources required to breed.

Sections

References

Almada, V.C., Gonçalves, E.J., Oliveira, R.F. & Santos, A.J. (1995). Courting females: ecological constraints affect sex roles in a natural population of the blenniid fish Salaria pavo. — Anim. Behav. 49: 1125-1127.

Alworth, T. & Scheiber, I.B.R. (1999). An incident of female–female aggression in the house wren. — Wilson Bull. 111: 130-132.

Andersson, M. & Simmons, L.W. (2006). Sexual selection and mate choice. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 296-302.

Arnott, G. & Elwood, R.W. (2009). Gender differences in aggressive behaviour in convict cichlids. — Anim. Behav. 78: 1221-1227.

Barton, K. (2015). MuMIn: multi-model inference. — R Package, Version 1.13.4, available online at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.

Bateman, A.J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. — Heredity 2: 349-368.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. — R Package, Version 1.1-7, available online at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

Bioacoustics research program (2011). Raven Pro: interactive sound analysis software, Version 1.4. — The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, available online at http://www.birds.cornell.edu/raven.

Borg, Å.A., Forsgren, E. & Magnhagen, C. (2002). Plastic sex-roles in the common goby — the effect of nest availability. — Oikos 98: 105-115.

Bowers, E.K., Hodges, C.J., Forsman, A.M., Vogel, L.A., Masters, B.S., Johnson, B.G.P., Johnson, L.S., Thompson, C.F. & Sakaluk, S.K. (2014). Neonatal body condition, immune responsiveness, and hematocrit predict longevity in a wild bird population. — Ecology 95: 3027-3034.

Bro-Jørgensen, J. (2002). Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. — Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99: 9290-9293.

Bro-Jørgensen, J. (2011). Intra- and intersexual conflicts and cooperation in the evolution of mating strategies: lessons learnt from ungulates. — Evol. Biol. 38: 28-41.

Cain, K.E. & Rosvall, K.A. (2014). Next steps for understanding the selective relevance of female–female competition. — Front. Ecol. Evol. 2: 32.

Chek, A.A. & Robertson, R.J. (1991). Infanticide in female tree swallows: a role for sexual selection. — Condor 93: 454-457.

Clutton-Brock, T.H. (2009). Sexual selection in females. — Anim. Behav. 77: 3-11.

Clutton-Brock, T.H., Hodge, S.J., Spong, G., Russell, A.F., Jordan, N.R., Bennett, N.C., Sharpe, L.L. & Manser, M.B. (2006). Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. — Nature 444: 1065-1068.

Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Huchard, E. (2013). Social competition and selection in males and females. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 368: 20130074.

Czapka, S.J. & Johnson, L.S. (2000). Consequences of mate sharing for first-mated females in a polygynous songbird, the house wren. — Wilson Bull. 112: 72-81.

Dale, S. & Slagsvold, T. (1995). Female contests for nest sites and mates in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. — Ethology 99: 209-222.

DeMory, M.L., Thompson, C.F. & Sakaluk, S.K. (2010). Male quality influences male provisioning in house wrens independent of attractiveness. — Behav. Ecol. 21: 1156-1164.

Draud, M., Macías-Ordóñez, R., Verga, J. & Itzkowitz, M. (2004). Female and male Texas cichlids (Herichthys cyanoguttatum) do not fight by the same rules. — Behav. Ecol. 15: 102-108.

Drilling, N.E. & Thompson, C.F. (1988). Natal and breeding dispersal in house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). — Auk 105: 480-491.

Drilling, N.E. & Thompson, C.F. (1991). Mate switching in multibrooded house wrens. — Auk 108: 60-70.

Dubois, N.S. & Getty, T. (2003). Empty nests do not affect female mate choice or maternal investment in house wrens. — Condor 105: 382-387.

Dubois, N.S., Kennedy, E.D. & Getty, T. (2006). Surplus nest boxes and the potential for polygyny affect clutch size and offspring sex ratio in house wrens. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 273: 1751-1757.

Duckworth, R.A. (2006). Aggressive behaviour affects selection on morphology by influencing settlement patterns in a passerine bird. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 273: 1789-1795.

Eckerle, K.P. & Thompson, C.F. (2006). Mate choice in house wrens: nest cavities trump male characteristics. — Behaviour 143: 253-271.

Eggert, A., Otte, T. & Müller, J. (2008). Starving the competition: a proximate cause of reproductive skew in burying beetles (Nicrophorus vespilloides). — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 275: 2521-2528.

Elias, D.O., Botero, C.A., Andrade, M.C.B., Mason, A.C. & Kasumovic, M.M. (2010). High resource valuation fuels “desperado” fighting tactics in female jumping spiders. — Behav. Ecol. 21: 868-875.

Enquist, M. & Leimar, O. (1990). The evolution of fatal fighting. — Anim. Behav. 39: 1-9.

Fitzpatrick, S., Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. (1995). Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. — Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55: 251-260.

Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (eds) (2011). An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn.Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Frank, L.G. (1986). Social organization of the spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta. II. Dominance and reproduction. — Anim. Behav. 34: 1510-1527.

Freed, L.A. (1986). Territory takeover and sexually selected infanticide in tropical house wrens. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 197-206.

French, J.A., Mustoe, A.C., Cavanaugh, J. & Birnie, A.K. (2013). The influence of androgenic steroid hormones on female aggression in ‘atypical’ mammals. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 368: 20130084.

Gowaty, P.A. & Wagner, S.J. (1988). Breeding season aggression of female and male Eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) to models of potential conspecific and interspecific egg dumpers. — Ethology 78: 238-250.

Grafen, A. (1987). The logic of divisively asymmetric contests: respect for ownership and the desperado effect. — Anim. Behav. 35: 462-467.

Grana, S.C., Sakaluk, S.K., Bowden, R.M., Doellman, M.A., Vogel, L.A. & Thompson, C.F. (2012). Reproductive allocation in female house wrens is not influenced by experimentally altered male attractiveness. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66: 1247-1258.

Gwynne, D.T. & Simmons, L.W. (1990). Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. — Nature 346: 172-174.

Heinsohn, R. (2008). The ecological basis of unusual sex roles in reverse-dichromatic Eclectus parrots. — Anim. Behav. 76: 97-103.

Johnson, L.S. & Albrecht, D.J. (1993). Does the cost of polygyny in house wrens include reduced male assistance in defending offspring?Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33: 131-136.

Johnson, L.S. & Kermott, L.H. (1990). Structure and context of female song in a north-temperate population of house wrens. — J. Field Ornithol. 61: 273-284.

Johnson, L.S. & Kermott, L.H. (1991a). Effect of nest-site supplementation on polygynous behavior in the house wren (Troglodytes aedon). — Condor 93: 784-787.

Johnson, L.S. & Kermott, L.H. (1991b). The functions of song in male house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). — Behaviour 116: 190-209.

Johnson, L.S. & Kermott, L.H. (1993). Why is reduced male parental assistance detrimental to the reproductive success of secondary female house wrens?Anim. Behav. 46: 1111-1120.

Johnson, L.S. & Kermott, L.H. (1994). Nesting success of cavity-nesting birds using natural tree cavities. — J. Field Ornithol. 65: 36-51.

Johnson, L.S., Kermott, L.H. & Lein, M.R. (1993). The cost of polygyny in the house wren Troglodytes aedon. — J. Anim. Ecol. 62: 669-682.

Johnson, L.S. & Searcy, W.A. (1996). Female attraction to male song in house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). — Behaviour 133: 357-366.

Jones, A.G. & Ratterman, N.L. (2009). Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin?Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 10001-10008.

Kendeigh, S.C. (1941). Territorial and mating behavior of the house wren. — Ill. Biol. Monogr. 18: 1-120.

Koivula, K., Lahti, K., Orell, M. & Rytkönen, S. (1993). Prior residency as a key determinant of social dominance in the willow tit (Parus montanus). — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33: 283-287.

Korner-Nievergelt, F., Roth, T., von Felten, S., Guélat, J., Almasi, B. & Korner-Nievergelt, P. (2015). Bayesian data analysis in ecology using linear models with R, BUGS, and Stan. — Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Krieg, C.A. & Getty, T. (2016). Not just for males: females use song against male and female rivals in a temperate zone songbird. — Anim. Behav. 113: 39-47.

Liker, A. & Székely, T. (1997). Aggression among female lapwings, Vanellus vanellus. — Anim. Behav. 54: 797-802.

Llambías, P.E., LaBarbera, K. & Astíe, A.A. (2012). Similar patterns of parental provisioning in a monogamous and a polygynous population of the house wren. — Condor 114: 629-638.

Magee, L. (1990). R2 measures based on Wald and likelihood ratio joint significance tests. — Am. Stat. 44: 250-253.

Murphy, T.G., Hernández-Muciño, D., Osorio-Beristain, M., Montgomerie, R. & Omland, K.E. (2009). Carotenoid-based status signaling by females in the tropical streak-backed oriole. — Behav. Ecol. 20: 1000-1006.

Newton, L. (1994). The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. — Biol. Conserv. 70: 265-276.

Papadopoulos, N.T., Carey, J.R., Liedo, P., Müller, H. & Sentürk, D. (2009). Virgin females compete for mates in the male lekking species Ceratitis capitata. — Physiol. Entomol. 34: 238-245.

Pusey, A.E. & Schroepfer-Walker, K. (2013). Female competition in chimpanzees. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Bio. Sci. 368: 20130077.

R Core Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. — R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, available online at http://www.R-project.org.

Renison, D., Boersma, D. & Martella, M.B. (2003). Fighting in female magellanic penguins: when, why and who wins?Wilson Bull. 115: 58-63.

Rillich, J., Buhl, E., Schildberger, K. & Stevenson, P.A. (2009). Female crickets are driven to fight by the male courting and calling songs. — Anim. Behav. 77: 737-742.

Robinson, M.R. & Kruuk, L.E.B. (2007). Function of weaponry in females: the use of horns in intrasexual competition for resources in female Soay sheep. — Biol. Lett. 3: 651-654.

Robinson, S.K. (1985). Fighting and assessment in the yellow-rumped cacique (Cacicus cela). — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18: 39-44.

Rosvall, K.A. (2008). Sexual selection on aggressiveness in females: evidence from an experimental test with tree swallows. — Anim. Behav. 75: 1603-1610.

Rosvall, K.A. (2011). Intrasexual competition in females: evidence for sexual selection?Behav. Ecol. 22: 1131-1140.

Rubenstein, D.R. (2012). Sexual and social competition: broadening perspectives by defining female roles. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 367: 2248-2252.

Sæther, S.A., Fiske, P. & Kålås, J.A. (2001). Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulation in a lekking bird. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 268: 2097-2102.

Sandell, M.I. (1998). Female aggression and the maintenance of monogamy: female behaviour predicts male mating status in European starlings. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 265: 1307-1311.

Sandell, M.I. & Smith, H.G. (1997). Female aggression in the European starling during the breeding season. — Anim. Behav. 53: 13-23.

Shelly, T.E. (1999). Defense of oviposition sites by female oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). — Florida Entomol. 82: 339-346.

Shuster, S.M. & Wade, M.J. (2003). Mating systems and strategies. — Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY.

Sinn, D.L., While, G.M. & Wapstra, E. (2008). Maternal care in a social lizard: links between female aggression and offspring fitness. — Anim. Behav. 76: 1249-1257.

Slagsvold, T. & Lifjeld, J.T. (1994). Polygyny in birds: the role of competition between females for male parental care. — Am. Nat. 143: 59-94.

Soukup, S.S. & Thompson, C.F. (1998). Social mating system and reproductive success in house wrens. — Behav. Ecol. 9: 43-48.

Stockley, P. & Bro-Jørgensen, J. (2011). Female competition and its evolutionary consequences in mammals. — Biol. Rev. 86: 341-366.

Stockley, P. & Campbell, A. (2013). Female competition and aggression: interdisciplinary perspectives. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 368: 20130073.

Summers, K. (1989). Sexual selection and intra-female competition in the poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus. — Anim. Behav. 37: 797-805.

Veiga, J.P. (1992). Why are house sparrows predominantly monogamous? A test of hypotheses. — Anim. Behav. 43: 361-370.

Watson, N.L. & Simmons, L.W. (2010). Reproductive competition promotes the evolution of female weaponry. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 277: 2035-2040.

While, G.M., Sinn, D.L. & Wapstra, E. (2009). Female aggression predicts mode of paternity acquisition in a social lizard. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 276: 2021-2029.

Wong, M.Y.L., Munday, P.L., Buston, P.M. & Jones, G.P. (2008). Monogamy when there is potential for polygyny: test of multiple hypotheses in a group-living fish. — Behav. Ecol. 19: 353-361.

Yokel, D.A. (1989). Payoff asymmetries in contests among male brown-headed cowbirds. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24: 209-216.

Figures

  • The potential outcomes and associated costs for resident female house wrens facing female intruders on one-box and three-box territories.

    View in gallery
  • (a) The mean number of attacks (± SE) and (c) the mean latency to approach within 5 meters (± SE) of a simulated intruder by females assigned to the one-box or three-box treatment. (b) The mean number of attacks (± SE) and (d) the mean latency to approach within 5 meters (± SE) during heterospecific playback by females assigned to the one-box or three-box treatment. Number in parentheses indicate the number of females in each category. The p-values are the result from a Poisson generalized linear mixed model (a) or linear mixed models (c, d).

    View in gallery
  • The mean (± SE) time it took mates of one-box and three-box females to approach within 5 m of a simulated female intruder. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of males in each category. The p-value is the result from a Wilcoxon rank sum test.

    View in gallery
  • (a) Females that switched territories between their first and second brood were significantly more likely to fail to fledge any second brood offspring (dark bars, binomial generalized linear model, p=0.036). (b) When females that failed were removed, the mean (± SE) number of offspring fledged did not differ between females that stayed and switched (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p=0.24). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of females in each category.

    View in gallery
  • Nest box with predator guard from our house wren population.

    View in gallery
  • One song from female trial playback stimuli (a) f-17-2013 from female bl/pu, yw/al (254067679); (b) f-17b1-2013 and f-17-2012 from female or/bk, gn/al (254067458); (c) f-14-2013 from female yw/al, pu/bl (254067497); (d) f-21-2012 and f-21-2013 from female yw/rd, gn/al (254067600); (e) f-23-2012, f-23-2013 from female gn/rd, rd/al (254067466); (f) f-18-2013 from female bl/bk, yw/al (254067680); (g) f-38-2013 from an unbanded female, (h) f-17b2-2013 from female or/bk, gn/al (254067458); (i) f-25-2013 from female bl/yw, yw/al (254067704); (j) f-27-2013 from female pu/or, bk/al (254067563); (k) f-42-2013 from female pu/yw, rd/al (254067693); (l) f-c1-2013 from female bk/gn, yw/al (254067686); (m) f-a1-2013 from female yw/al, bk/yw (254067172); (n) f-a2-2012 and f-a2-2013 from an unbanded female, (o) f-a6-2012 from female bk/pu, rd/al (254066778); (p) f-b52-2013 from female rd/al, pi/bk (254066770); (q) f-c4-2012 from female wh/pi, gn/al (254067063); (r) f-c4-2013 from female wh/pi, gn/al (254067063); (s) f-c5-2013 from female bl/pu, pi/al (254067313). Background bird sounds are present in (b) between 0.1–0.4 s, (i) at 1.1 s, (j) between 1.2–1.8 s, (l) between 0.8–1.4 s and (q) at 0.3 and 0.6 s.

    View in gallery
  • One song from male trial playback stimuli (a) m-1-2012 and m-1-2013 from male pu/pi, al/rd (251010447); (b) m-14-2012 and m-14-2013 from male pi/wh, bk/al (254067464); (c) m-a1-2013 from male rd/pi, bl/al (254066571); (d) m-19-2012 and m-19-2013 from an unbanded male; (e) m-c1-2013 from male bl/rd, or/al (254067689); (f) m-10b-2012 and m-10b-2013 from male bl/rd, bk/al (254067434); (g) m-16-2013 from male or/bl, or/al (254067688); (h) m-a3b-2013 from male rd/al, pi/pu (254067705); (i) m-a3-2012 and m-a3-2013 from male gn/or, rd/al (254067320); (j) m-a7-2013 from male pi/al, wh/pu (254067524); (k) m-41-2013 from male bk/bl, pu/al (254066916); (l) m-21-2012 and m-21-2013 from an unbanded male; (m) m-a4-2013 from male bl/bl, pu/al (254066760); (n) m-c5-2013 from male bk/pu, gn/al (254067120).

    View in gallery
  • Reproductive performance during the first brood for 13 females that stayed on the same territory for their second brood and 15 females that switched to a new territory for their second brood.

    View in gallery
  • The proportion of females experiencing each outcome for their first brood for females that stayed on their first brood territory and females that switched to a new territory.

    View in gallery
  • The proportion of females experiencing each outcome for their second brood for females that stayed on their first brood territory and females that switched to a new territory.

    View in gallery
  • The mean (± SE) attacks (left) and time to approach within 5 m (right) by male house wrens during simulated heterospecific, female, and male intruders. The p-values are the result of a linear mixed model with trial type as a fixed effect, male identity as a random effect, and Tukey post-hoc corrections to control for multiple comparisons. ** p<0.001.

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 3 3 3
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0