Supporting Table S1. Studies testing the potential for kin selection in lekking species. Dashes indicate unknown value. Studies with multiple
entries reported both significantly positive and non-significant average relatedness across lekking males.
Study species
Average R
N leks
Note
Reference
Peafowl (Pavo cristatus)
Prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)
Yes
Yes
4
2
Full-siblings reared separately displayed together
Petrie et al. (1999)
Bouzat & Johnson (2004)
No
2
Bouzat & Johnson (2004)
Yes
6
Regnaut et al. (2006)
No
3
Significant genetic structure within leks
Segelbacher et al. (2007)
-
4
Genetic structure between leks within one study site
Höglund et al. (1999)
No
8
Lebigre et al. (2008)
Yes
1
Lebigre et al. (2008)
No
7
Gibson et al. (2005)
No
9
Bush et al. (2010)
Yes
1
Bush et al. (2011)
No
53
Yes
2
Kin groups within lek
Shorey et al. (2000)
Yes
9
Spatial structure with significant within lek relatedness
Höglund & Shorey (2003)
Yellow-collared manakin (Manacus vitellinus)
Yes
8
Concannon et al. (2012)
White-collared manakin (Manacus candei)
No
8
Concannon et al. (2012)
Long-tailed manakin (Chiroxiphia linearis)
-
-
Males with direct network connections were unrelated
McDonald (2009)
Blue manakin (Chiroxiphia caudata)
No
13
Kin groups within leks
Francisco et al. (2009)
Wire-tailed manakin (Pipra filicauda)
No
3
Loiselle et al. (2007)
White-crowned manakin (Pipra pipra)
No
3
Loiselle et al. (2007)
Blue-crowned manakin (Lepidothrix coronata)
No
3
Loiselle et al. (2007)
Blue-backed manakin (Chiroxiphia pareola)
No
3
Loiselle et al. (2007)
Moor frog (Rana arvalis)
No
7
Knopp et al. (2008)
Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus)
Black grouse (Tetrao tetrix)
Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
White-bearded manakin (Manacus manacus)
Bush et al. (2011)
Supporting Table S2. Spearman rank correlation coefficients between lek size and
several measures of variation in male mating success. Variation in mating success was
measured in the 28 leks studied during 2001-2011 using the variance (Var), the
opportunity for sexual selection (ISS, the squared mean standardised variance; 17),
Morisita’s index (Iδ, 18) and the B-index (19).
Lek size
rS
P
Var
0.25
0.11
ISS
0.49
<0.01
Iδ
0.52
<0.01
Q
-0.11
0.50
B
-0.04
0.81
Supporting Table S3. Variation in lek size across during 2001-2007. Values in
parentheses are the number of newcomers (yearling and older) identified on each lek in
each year.
2001
Kummunsuo
Lehtosuo
Saarisuo
Teerijärvensuo
Valkeissuo
13(-)
-
2002
31(9)
8(1)
16(5)
2003
24(6)
3(-)
8(2)
13(7)
Year
2004
16(5)
5(2)
10(4)
23(4)
2005
16(3)
7(3)
6(2)
7(1)
15(-)
2006
23(5)
12(5)
8(2)
16(-)
14(4)
2007
32(11)
13(4)
21(7)
18(3)
20(9)
Supporting Figure S1. Influence of population density and male age on the newcomers’
indirect fitness benefits. Newcomers’ indirect fitness benefits were estimated here using
Queller and Goodnight’s estimator (RQG). The effect of population density on
newcomers’ indirect fitness benefits are showed for yearling (black dots, solid lines) and
older newcomers (open dots, dashed lines).
Indirect fitness benefits
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
Low
Increasing
Population Density
High
References
Bouzat JL, Johnson K (2004) Genetic structure among closely spaced leks in a
peripheral population of lesser prairie-chickens. Molecular Ecology 13, 499–505.
Bush KL, Aldridge CL, Carpenter JE et al. (2010) Birds of a feather do not always lek
together: Genetic diversity and kinship structure of greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) in Alberta. Auk 127, 343–353.
Bush KL, Dyte CK, Moynahan BJ et al. (2011) Population structure and genetic diversity
of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in fragmented landscapes at
the northern edge of their range. Conservation Genetics 12, 527–542.
Concannon MR, Stein AC, Uy JAC (2012) Kin selection may contribute to lek evolution
and trait introgression across an avian hybrid zone. Molecular Ecology 21, 1477–
1486.
Francisco MR, Gibbs HL, Galetti Jr PM (2009) Patterns of individual relatedness at blue
manakin (Chiroxiphia caudata) leks. Auk 126, 47–53.
Gibson RM, Pirs D, Delaney KS et al. (2005) Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that
greater sage grouse leks are not kin groups. Molecular Ecology 14, 4453–4459.
Höglund J, Alatalo RV, Lundberg A et al. (1999) Microsatellite markers reveal the
potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B
266, 813–816.
Höglund J, Shorey L (2003) Local genetic structure in a white-bearded manakin
population. Molecular Ecology 12, 2457–2463.
Knopp T, Heimovirta M, Kokko H et al. (2008) Do male moor frogs (Rana arvalis) lek
with kin? Molecular Ecology 17, 2522–2530.
Lebigre C, Alatalo RV, Forss HE et al. (2008) Low levels of relatedness on black grouse
leks despite male philopatry. Molecular Ecology 17, 4512–4521.
Loiselle BA, Ryder TB, Durães R et al. (2007) Kin selection does not explain male
aggregation at leks of 4 manakin species. Behavioral Ecology 18, 287–291.
McDonald DB (2009) Young-boy networks without kin clusters in a lek-mating manakin.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63, 1029–1034.
Morisita M (1962) I-index, a measure of dispersion of individuals. Researches on
Population Ecology 4, 1–7.
Nonacs P (2000) Measuring and using skew in the study of social behavior and
evolution. American Naturalist 156, 577–589.
Petrie M, Krupa A, Burke T (1999) Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of
social and environmental cues. Nature 401, 155–157.
Regnaut S, Christe P, Chapuisat M et al. (2006) Genotyping faeces reveals facultative
kin association on capercaillie’s leks. Conservation Genetics 7, 665–674.
Segelbacher G, Wegge P, Sivkov AV et al. (2007) Kin groups in closely spaced
capercaillie leks. Journal of Ornithology 148, 79–84.
Shorey L, Piertney SB, Stone J et al. (2000) Fine-scale genetic structuring on Manacus
manacus leks. Nature 408, 352–353.
Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, NJ.