102 
THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY • Vol 124. No. 1. March 2012 
TABLE 2. Top (A < 20) conditional logit discrete choice models of male Lesser Prairie-Chicken mating success in the 
Texas Southern High Plains during 2008 and 2009 incorporating 19 males and 52 copulations regardless of success. 
Model' 
Deviance 
Idle + MCP 
Idle + Age 
Idle + MCP + Pinnae 
Idle + Age + Display 
Idle + Dist + Mass 
Idle + Pinnae 
Idle + Mass 
Idle + Dist + Pinnae 
Idle 
AIC, 
AAIC, 
w, 
60.95 
61.17 
60.95 
61.14 
72.80 
75.58 
77.32 
75.21 
81.47 
65.17 
65.38 
67.40 
67.58 
79.24 
79.79 
81.53 
81.66 
83.54 
0.00 
0.21 
2.22 
2.41 
14.07 
14.62 
16.36 
16.48 
18.37 
0.40 
0.36 
0.13 
0.12 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
fiESSSe 2 227-3222222125 SUES!" “—«» ■—“ 
display often may indicate a poorer physiological 
condition and inability to acquire sufficient "food 
resources compared to other males. 
Males with smaller territories tended to mate 
more, as reported by others (Wiley 1973, Hovi 
et al. 1994). Our finding of distance to lek center 
having little to no effect on mating success is in 
contrast to most previous research (Ballard and 
Robel 1974, Kruijt and de Vos 1988, Gratson et al. 
1991, Rintamaki el al. 1995) although Gibson 
and Bradbury (1985) and Nooker and Sandercock 
(2008) also found that territory location was not 
important in mate choice. Our correlation analysis 
suggested that males closer to the center of the lek 
mated more than peripheral males. Smaller terri¬ 
tories are typically associated with areas on the lek 
with higher male density (Wiley 1973). Areas of 
high male density arc thought to be a result of 
males relocating their territories around successful 
males and intruding into their territories in hope of 
gaining copulations (Landel 1989). Rintamaki et al. 
(1995) noted this phenomenon as the ‘spatial spill* 
hypothesis (hotshot hypothesis, Arak 1984), 
whereas males cluster around dominant males in 
hope of gaining copulations. Rintamaki et al. 
(1995) speculated the reason for these ‘spillover 
copulations may include a surplus of females 
attempting to copulate with the dominant male and 
competition lor that male may cause females to 
mate with adjacent males. The dominant male may 
be limited by sperm depletion or adjacent males 
may steal copulations from a preoccupied domi¬ 
nant male (Rintamaki et al. 1995). Females may 
experience difficulties in comparing males and 
mistakenly mate with an adjacent, potentially 
poorer quality, male. It is not clear whether 
territory size or location is a cause or effect of 
being a dominant male (Gratson et al. 1991). 
It is possible that radio transmitters affected 
reproductive performance of prairie-chickens. The 
lour radio-marked males were all on the same lek 
and included two adults and two yearlings. Only 
variable 
choice models de^cribimf effwTV C ° e f ru ; ients ( P ,US or m,nus unconditional SE) of standardized variables from discrete 
(light gray) and only successful c Tc Le ^ er Prairic ' Ch,cken characteristics on obtainment of any copulation attempt 
categorical adult or yearling.' DisoUv miTdl (dark . gray) ,n ,he Texas Southern High Plains during 2008 and 2009. Age is 
is distance from territory center lo lek - ^ propon j on nl behaviors recorded as each behavior category. Distance 
morphological characteristics Frm.- hi rc ^ ls ,erntor y size (minimum convex polygon). Pinnae and mass are 
• trro, bars extending outs.de the region 5 to -7 are not shown completely. 
