Evolutionary pathways in shorebird breeding systems: Sexual conflict, parental care, and chick development

G H Thomas, T Szekely

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

54 Citations (SciVal)


Sexual selection, mating opportunities, and parental behavior are interrelated, although the specific nature of these relationships is controversial. Two major hypotheses have been suggested. The parental investment hypothesis states that the relative parental investment of the sexes drives the operation of sexual selection. Thus, the sex that invests less in offspring care competes more intensely and monopolizes access to mates. The sexual conflict hypothesis proposes that sexual selection (the competition among both males and females for mates), mating opportunities, and parental behavior are interrelated and predicts a feedback loop between mating systems and parental care. Here we test both hypotheses using a comprehensive dataset of shorebirds, a maximum-likelihood statistical technique, and a recent supertree of extant shorebirds and allies. Shorebirds are an excellent group for these analyses because they display unique variation in parental care and social mating system. First, we show that chick development constrains the evolution of both parental care and mate competition, because transitions toward more precocial offspring preceded transitions toward reduced parental care and social polygamy. Second, changes in care and mating systems respond to one another, most likely because both influenced and are influenced by mating opportunities. Taken together, our results are more consistent with the sexual conflict hypothesis than the parental investment hypothesis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2222-2230
Number of pages9
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Bibliographical note

ID number: ISI:000232941400014


Dive into the research topics of 'Evolutionary pathways in shorebird breeding systems: Sexual conflict, parental care, and chick development'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this