Abstract

Adaptive sex-ratio theory predicts that parents should overproduce the more beneficial offspring sex. Based on a recent experimental study of lesser black-backed gulls, we tested this hypothesis with the great skua, Catharacta skua, a bird species closely related to gulls but where females are the larger sex. When in poor body condition, the gulls overproduced daughters, the smaller and more viable sex under those circumstances. To discriminate between a mandatory physiological overproduction of female (i.e. non-male) eggs versus the overproduction of the smaller and presumably more viable sex, we conducted an egg-removal experiment with the great skua. Since the males are smaller, larger size and being male are separated. Through egg removal we induced females to increase egg production effort. Eggs were sexed using a DNA-based technique. Manipulated pairs produced a significant male bias at the end of the extended laying sequence, while the sex ratio in the control group did not differ from unity. Our results present an example of facultative sex-ratio manipulation and support the hypothesis that in sexually dimorphic birds parents overproduce the smaller sex under adverse conditions.

Keywords

Sexual dimorphismBiologySex ratioOffspringFacultativeZoologySex allocationEcologyDemographyGeneticsPregnancy

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

The Evolution of Parental Care

Synthesizing studies of parental care in a wide variety of animals, this book is the first attempt to provide general answers to the following important questions: Why does the ...

2019 Princeton University Press eBooks 3160 citations

Publication Info

Year
2001
Type
article
Volume
268
Issue
1481
Pages
2175-2179
Citations
114
Access
Closed

External Links

Citation Metrics

114
OpenAlex

Cite This

Ellen Kalmbach, Ruedi G. Nager, Richard Griffiths et al. (2001). Increased reproductive effort results in male-biased offspring sex ratio: an experimental study in a species with reversed sexual size dimorphism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences , 268 (1481) , 2175-2179. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1793

Identifiers

DOI
10.1098/rspb.2001.1793