| Abstract: | We experimentally manipulated the strength of selection in the field on red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) to test hypotheses about contrasting selective forces that favor either large or small males in sexually size dimorphic birds. Selander (1972) argued that sexual selection favors larger males, while survival selection eventually stabilizes male size because larger males do not survive as well as smaller males during harsh winters. Searcy (1979a) proposed instead that sexual selection may be self limiting: male size might be stabilized not by overwinter mortality, but by breeding-season sexual selection that favors smaller males. Under conditions of energetic stress, smaller males should be able to display more and thus achieve higher reproductive success. Using feeders that provisioned males or females but not both, we produced conditions that mimicked the extremes of natural conditions. We found experimental support for the hypothesis that when food is abundant, sexual selection favors larger males. But even under conditions of severe energetic stress, smaller males did not gain larger harems, as the self-limiting hypothesis predicted. Larger males were more energetically stressed than smaller males, but in ways that affected their future reproductive output rather than their current reproductive performance. Stressed males that returned had smaller wings and tails than those that did not return; among returning stressed males, relative harem sizes were inversely related to wing and tail length. Thus, male body size may be stabilized not by survival costs during the non-breeding season, nor by energetic costs during the breeding season, but by costs of future reproduction that larger males pay for their increased breeding-season effort. |
