Behneyetal. • PRAIRIE-CHICKEN BREEDING BEHAVIOR 
101 
TABLE 1. Characteristics measured for male Lesser 
:0()9 in ihe Texas Southern High Plains. 
Prairie-Chickens observed at two leks in 
2008 and three leks in 
Mean i SE 
Calfjorv 
Trail 
Adult in = 10) 
Yearling (n = 9) 
CV 
Behavior 6 
Territory 
Morphology 
Display 
Face off 
Fighting 
Idle 
Moving 
Distance to lek center (m) 
Kernel size (nr) 
MCP size (nr) 
Wing cord (cm) 
Tarsus (cm) 
Pinnae (cm) 
Mass (g) 
0.29 ± 0.02 
0.33 ± 0.03 
0.00 ± o.oo 
0.25 ± 0.03 
0.13 ± 0.02 
12.66 ± 1.40 
245.07 ±41.26 
108.50 ± 17.49 
21.69 ± 0.12 
5.83 ± 0.06 
6.64 ± 0.13 
783.10 ± 9.03 
0.30 ± 0.03 
0.35 ± 0.04 
0.01 ± 0.00 
0.19 ± 0.02 
0.15 ± 0.01 
1 1.09 ± 1.75 
109.68 ± 10.73 
43.29 ± 5.46 
21.54 ± 0.09 
5.47 ±0.11 
6.88 ± 0.22 
780.22 ± 13.65 
36.57 
41.63 
295.55 
53.36 
44.64 
56.44 
81.92 
84.27 
2.17 
7.42 
11.08 
6.20 
h Coefncicnl of Variation values computed from pooled adult and yearling values. 
’ | W»w variables are proportion of observations in each behavior category for nn individual male. 
males), included idle and MCP hut obtained an 
Akaike weight of only 23% (Table 3). All models 
containing idle outperformed those not containing 
ihe variable and it had the greatest model averaged 
slope coefficient (Fig. 3). Relative importance 
values for idle, MCP, age, mass, pinnae, display, 
and distance were 1.00,0.43.0.39. 0.27, 0.17,0.08, 
and 0.05. respectively. 
DISCUSSION 
found significant skew in male mating, 
S| milar to those reported for Greater Prairie- 
chickens (Nooker and Sandercock 2008). It is 
tlear (hat male Lesser Prairie-Chickens that are 
less idle experience greater mating success, 
darling males with smaller territories also tended 
’"k selected more often for mating in our study. 
Morphological characteristics exhibited weaker 
effects on male mating success. Males displayed 
high territory fidelity within a season (alter initial 
territory establishment). 
Males that were less idle were more likely to 
mate which we interpret to indicate that males 
that are generally more active experience greater 
mating success. It has been repeatedly tound that 
males that display more, mate more (Gibson and 
Bradbury 1985. Hdglund and Lundberg 1987, 
Nooker and Sandercock 2008). Being idle likely 
requires less energy than participating in other 
behaviors and Gibson and Bradbury (1985) 
suggest that energetic factors may have a role in 
observed variation in display rates. A host ot 
reasons exist for female choice based on behav¬ 
ioral characteristics including direct survival 
benefits for the female or indirect genetic benefits 
for her offspring. For example, males that do not 
2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient ^^^."^Ton let-in meTex^s'stu'themffigh Plains during 2008 and 
4. Splay'JIS Me. aTmoving are ,he proportion of behaviors recorded in each behavior category. 
Pittance = distance from territory center to lek center. MCP = territory size tmmtntnm convex polygon). Wmg, tarsus, 
P'nnae. and mass are morphological characteristics. 
