SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

LITERATURE CITED

  • Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton , NJ .
  • Andersson, M., and L. W. Simmons. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 21:296302.
  • Artiss, T., and K. Martin. 1995. Male vigilance in white-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus—mate guarding or predator detection. Anim. Behav. 49:12491258.
  • Birkhead, T. R., and A. P. Møller. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London .
  • Birkhead, T. R., E. J. Pellat, I. M. Matthews, N. J. Roddis, F. M. Hunter, F. McPhie, and H. Castillo-Juarez. 2006. Genetic capture and the genetic basis of sexually selected traits in the zebra finch. Evolution 60:23892398.
  • Cheng, K. M., and J. T. Burns. 1988. Dominance relationship and mating behavior of domestic cocks—a model to study mate-guarding and sperm competition in birds. Condor 90:697704.
  • Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows. 2006. Dissecting the complex genetic basis of mate choice. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7:681692.
  • Clark, M. M., and B. G. Galef. 1995. Prenatal influences on reproductive life history strategies. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 10:151153.
  • Collias, N. E., and E. C. Collias. 1996. Social organization of a red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, population related to evolutionary theory. Anim. Behav. 51:13371354.
  • Cornwallis, C. K., and T. R. Birkhead. 2006. Social status and availability of females determine patterns of sperm allocation in the fowl. Evolution 60:14861493.
  • Cornwallis, C. K., and T. R. Birkhead. 2007. Changes in sperm quality and numbers in response to experimental manipulation of male social status and female attractiveness. Am. Nat. 170:758771.
  • Crawley, M. J. 2002. Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-plus. Wiley, West Sussex .
  • Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London .
  • Dziuk, P. J. 1996. Factors that influence the proportion of offspring sired by a male following heterospermic insemination. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 43:6588.
  • Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
  • Emlen, D. J. 2001. Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science 291:15341536.
  • Etches, R. J. 1996. Reproduction in poultry. CAB International. Oxford .
  • Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longmans, New York .
  • Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford .
  • Forsyth, A., and J. Alcock. 1990. Female mimicry and resource defense polygyny by males of a tropical rove beetle, Leistotrophus versicolor (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26:325330.
  • Fritz, H., M. Guillemain, and D. Durant. 2002. The cost of vigilance for intake rate in the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): an approach through foraging experiments. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14:9197.
  • Froman, D. P., and D. J. McLean. 1996. Objective measurement of sperm motility based upon sperm penetration of Accudenz. Poult. Sci. 75:776784.
  • Froman, D. P., T. Pizzari, A. J. Feltmann, H. Castillo-Juarez, and T. R. Birkhead. 2002. Sperm mobility: mechanisms of fertilising efficiency, genetic variation and phenotypic relationship with male status in the fowl, Gallus g. domesticus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:607612.
  • Fusani, L., L. Beani, C. Lupo, and F. DessiFulgheri. 1997. Sexually selected vigilance behaviour of the grey partridge is affected by plasma androgen levels. Anim. Behav. 54:10131018.
  • Gage, M. J. G., C. P. Macfarlane, S. Yeates, R. G. Ward, J. B. Searle, and G. A. Parker. 2004. Spermatozoal traits and sperm competition in Atlantic salmon: relative sperm velocity is the primary determinant of fertilization success. Curr. Biol. 14:4447.
  • Garland, T., and S. A. Kelly. 2006. Phenotypic plasticity and experimental evolution. J. Exp. Biol. 209:23442361.
  • Gross, M. R. 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 11:9298.
  • Harrison, B. 1987. Den Svenska dvärghönan II. Sven Rasf TidsfKrift 1:1214.
  • Hine, E., S. F. Chenoweth, and M. W. Blows. 2004. Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58:27542762.
  • Hosken, D. J. 2001. Sex and death: microevolutionary trade-offs between reproductive and immune investment in dung flies. Curr. Biol. 11:R379R380.
  • Johnsen, T. S., M. Zuk, and E. A. Fessler. 2001. Social dominance, male behaviour and mating in mixed-sex flocks of red jungle fowl. Behaviour 138:118.
  • Johnson, L. 1991. Spermatogenesis. Pp. 173219 in P. T.Cupps, ed. Reproduction in domestic animals. Academic, San Diego , CA.
  • Kenward, M. G., and J. H. Roger. 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53:983997.
  • Kirby, J. D., and D. P. Froman. 2000. Reproduction in male birds. Pp. 597615 in P. D.Sturkie, ed. Avian physiology. Academic Press, London .
  • Lank, D. B., C. M. Smith, O. Hannote, T. Burke, and F. Cooke. 1995. Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating behaviour in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378:5962.
  • Levitan, D. R. 2000. Sperm velocity and longevity trade off each other and influence fertilization in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:531534.
  • Ligon, J. D., and P. W. Zwartjes. 1995. Ornate plumage of male red jungle fowl does not influence mate choice by females. Anim. Behav. 49:117125.
  • Ligon, J. D., R. Thornhill, M. Zuk, and K. Johnson. 1990. Male male competition, ornamentation and the role of testosterone in sexual selection in red jungle fowl. Anim. Behav. 40:367373.
  • Littell, R. C., G. A. Milliken, W. W. Stroup, R. D. Wolfinger, and O. Schabenberger. 2006. SAS for mixed models. SAS Press, Cary, NC.
  • Lynch, M., and W. Gabriel. 1987. Environmental tolerance. Am. Nat. 129:283303.
  • Martin, P. A., T. J. Reimers, J. R. Lodge, and P. J. Dzuik. 1974. The effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from two males on the proportion of offspring. J. Reprod. Fertil. 39:251258.
  • Moczek, A. P., and D. J. Emlen. 2000. Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? Anim. Behav. 59:459466.
  • Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 45:525567.
  • Parker, G. A. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. Pp. 141166 in P.Bateson., ed. Mate choice. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York .
  • Parker, G. A. 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. Pp. 354 in T. R.Birkhead and A. P.Møller., eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London .
  • Parker, T. H., and J. D. Ligon. 2002. Dominant male red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) test the dominance status of other males. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53:2024.
  • Parker, T. H., and J. D. Ligon. 2003. Female mating preferences in red junglefowl: a meta-analysis. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 15:6372.
  • Parker, T. H., R. Knapp, and J. A. Rosenfield. 2002. Social mediation of sexually selected ornamentation and steroid hormone levels in male junglefowl. Anim. Behav. 64:291298.
  • Pitnick, S. 1996. Investment in testes and the cost of making long sperm in Drosophila. Am. Nat. 148:5780.
  • Pizzari, T. 2003. Food, vigilance, and sperm: the role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous bird. Behav. Ecol. 14:593601.
  • Pizzari, T., D. P. Froman, and T. R. Birkhead. 2002. Pre- and post-insemination episodes of sexual selection in the fowl. Heredity 89:112116.
  • Pizzari, T., C. K. Cornwallis, H. Lovlie, S. Jakobsson, and T. R. Birkhead. 2003. Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature 426:7074.
  • Pizzari, T., C. K. Cornwallis, and D. P. Froman. 2007. Social competitive ability associated with rapid fluctuations in sperm quality in male fowl. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:853860.
  • Roff, D. A. 1997. Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman & Hall, New York .
  • Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 263:14151421.
  • Rudolfsen, G., L. Figenschou, I. Folstad, H. Tveiten, and M. Figenschou. 2006. Rapid adjustments of sperm characteristics in relation to social status. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273:325332.
  • Schütz, K. E., and P. Jensen. 2001. Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: a comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 107:753765.
  • Self, S. G., and K. Y. Liang. 1987. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under non-standard conditions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82:605610.
  • Simmons, L. W., and D. J. Emlen. 2006. Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:1634616351.
  • Simmons, L. W., and J. S. Kotiaho. 2002. Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56:16221631.
  • Sinervo, B., and C. M. Lively. 1996. The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies. Nature 380:240243.
  • Sinervo, B., and K. R. Zamudio. 2001. The evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: fitness differential, heritability, and genetic correlation between the sexes. Heredity 92:198205.
  • Snook, R. R. 2005. Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 20:4653.
  • Stearns, S. C. 2004. The evolution of life histories. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford .
  • Stockley, P., and N. J. Seal. 2001. Plasticity in reproductive effort of male dung flies (Scatophaga stercoraria) as a response to larval density. Funct. Ecol. 15:96102.
  • Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 122:765788.
  • Tufvesson, M., B. Tufvesson, T. Von Schantz, K. Johansson, and M. Wilhelmson. 1999. Selection for sexual male characters and their effects on other fitness related traits in white leghorn chickens. J. Anim. Breeding Genet. 116:127138.
  • Via, S. 1993. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity—target or by-product of selection in a variable environment. Am. Nat. 142:352365.
  • Via, S., and R. Lande. 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39:505522.
  • Vladić, T. V., and T. Järvi. 2001. Sperm quality in the alternative reproductive tactics of Atlantic Salmon: the importance of the loaded raffle mechanism. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:23752381.
  • Von Schantz, T., M. Tufvesson, G. Goranson, M. Grahn, M. Wilhelmson, and H. Wittzell. 1995. Artificial selection for increased comb size and its effects on other sexual characters and viability in Gallus domesticus (the domestic chicken). Heredity 75:518529.
  • Wedell, N., M. J. G. Gage, and G. A. Parker. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:313320.
  • Willisch, C. S., and P. Ingold. 2007. Feeding or resting? The strategy of rutting male Alpine chamois. Ethology 113:97104.
  • Wishart, G. J., and F. H. Palmer. 1986. Correlation of the fertilising ability of semen from individual male fowls with sperm motility and ATP content. Br. Poult. Sci. 27:97102.
  • Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1989. The behaviour of the domestic fowl. Nimrod Press, Alton .
  • Zamudio, K. R., and B. Sinervo. 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilization as alternative male mating strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97:1442714432.
  • Zuk, M., S. L. Popma, and T. S. Johnsen. 1995. Male courtship displays, ornaments and female mate choice in captive red jungle fowl. Behaviour 132:821836.