Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeQuestion and COmment
Posted by Peromyscus on 28 Jun 2007 at 01:06 GMT
The paper is reminiscent of the sunbird energetics papers.. We always talk about "costs", but rarely quantify them. I hope your paper encourages others to do the same.
One clarification: Are you saying that per unit time, that high quality males are more costly than lower quality males? I was unclear if they were more costly only because females spent more time there, and copulated more frequently, or if they were actually more costly per unit time.
Thanks.
RE: Question and COmment
vitousek replied to Peromyscus on 30 Jun 2007 at 13:56 GMT
Yes, high-quality males seem to be more costly per unit time than low-quality males, as females do not differ in the overall time spent on territories. Females typically only copulate once per season. The increased energetic costs associated with visiting high-quality males appear to come from their higher display rates, which cause visiting females to move a few steps away from the displaying male.