Behav Ecol Sociobiol (1995) 36:83-90© Springer-Verlag 1995

J. Faaborg • P.G. Parker • L. DeLay • Tj. de Vries
J.C. Bednarz - S. Maria Paz - J. Naranjo- T.A. Waite

Confirmation of cooperative polyandryin the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis}

Received: 19 August 1993 / Accepted after revision: 15 October 1994

Abstract Without genetic tests of parentage, descriptions of mating systems must be considered hypothetical. Here we confirm the existence of cooperativepolyandry in the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis)
using multilocus minisatellite D N A fingerprinting. In
this species, breeding groups consist of one adult female
and from one to eight males (the modal number of males
is two). In polyandrous groups, all males copulate withthe female and participate in the provisioning of theyoung. D N A samples from 66 individual hawks fromten breeding groups on the island of Santiago revealed
mixed paternity in most groups. Multiple paternity was
detected in five of six groups that produced two chicks
in one breeding attempt (year). In addition, different
males sired young in consecutive years in five of six
groups in which male group membership was constant.
Patterns of paternity suggest that reproductive success
was randomly distributed among males within groups,
with males apparently having equivalent probabilities
of siring each young. Analysis of genetic similarity indicates that males within groups were typically not close
relatives. These results demonstrate that the mating system of the Galapagos hawk is polyandrous, with relatively egalitarian relations among unrelated males belonging to the same breeding group.

J. Faaborg ([~) • L. DeLay
Division of Biological Sciences, 110 Tucker Hall,
University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
P.G. Parker • T.A. Waite
Department of Zoology, Ohio State University, Columbus,
OH 43210-1293, USA
Tj. de Vries • S.M. Paz • J. Naranjo
Departamento de Ciencias Biologicas,
Pontificia Universidad Cat61ica del Ecuador,
Apartado 17-01 2184, Quito, Ecuador
J.C. Bednarz
Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University,
P.O. Box 599, State University, AR 72467, USA

Key words D N A fingerprinting - Buteo galapagoensis
Paternity - Polyandry - Reproductive success

Introduction
The mating system of the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis) has been described as cooperative polyandry(Faaborg and Patterson 1982; Oring 1982). Socialgroups typically contain one adult female and two or
three adult males, though groups with as many as eightmales have been observed. Membership of such groups
is relatively stable from year to year (Faaborg 1986), andall males within a group are known to deliver food tothe nest and to copulate with the female. However, amore adequate description of the breeding systemawaits a genetic analysis of paternity to determine
whether multiple males sire young within a group andhow any such mixed paternity is divided among groupmembers.
Any interpretation of the selective forces maintaining
this social organization (and apparent mating system)
depends upon whether males belonging to the samegroup are typically genetic relatives. If they are typicallyrelated, group membership may confer an indirect fitness advantage upon nonreproductive males (Hamilton1964), and we might expect our paternity analysis toreveal that Galapagos hawks actually have a typicalcooperative breeding system, with an alpha breeding
male and one or more nonbreeding helpers. However, ifgroups contain unrelated males, no indirect fitness gain
would accrue to nonreproductive males, and paternity
may be relatively evenly shared among males withingroups (cf. Packer et al. 1991).
Here we use multilocus minisatellite D N A fingerprinting (Jeffreys et al. 1985a,b) to ask whether Galapagos hawk males within social groups tended to berelated and whether multiple paternity occurred withingroups, both within and between two consecutive
breeding seasons (years). We also evaluated whether reproductive success was randomly distributed among

84

males in a group, versus whether it was more evenly
shared than expected on the basis of chance or whether
processes such as sperm competition or behavioral
dominance might have biased paternity in favor of somemales.

Methods
Genetic analysis

Field methods

Fig, 1 DNA fingerprints of a
Galapagos hawk social groupconsisting of one adult female(F), two adult males (M1 andM2), and the two chicks they
produced (C1 and C2). M1
was assigned as the father ofC1 and M2 as the father of
C2. This autoradiograph represents a genomic HaeIII blot
hybridized with Jeffreys' multilocus probe 33.6

F MI C1 C2 M2

Kb
12-

8-

From one to three 50%tl blood samples were taken by venipuncture of the brachial vein of each bird captured. Samples were put
immediately into lysis buffer (100 mmol TRIS, pH 8.0, 100 mmol
EDTA, 10 mmol NaC1, 0.5% SDS; Longmire et al. 1988) containing 0.2% sodium azide, shaken, and stored indefinitely at ambient
temperature.

6-

DNA extraction

4-

DNA extraction began with addition of proteinase K (200 gg)
followed by incubation at 55 °C overnight. Subsequently, two extractions with phenol, two extractions with 25:24:1 phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol, and one extraction with 24:1
chloroform:isoamyl alcohol were performed. Following the last
extraction, the aqueous phase was dialyzed extensively against
TNE 2 (10 mmol Tris, pH 7.4; 10 mmol NaC1; 2 mmol EDTA).
Concentration and purity of extracted DNAs were assessed byspectrophotometry.

3-

Digests, hybridizations and autoradiography
Three micrograms DNA from each individual were digested with× 5 excess restriction endonuclease (HaeIII) at 37 °C for 3-5 h.
Resulting fragments were separated through a 0.8% agarose gel(22 cm) at 20 V for 65 h [until all fragments smaller than 1,600
base pairs (bp) had been run off the gel], and were then transferred
to nylon by Southern blot in x l 0 SSC (3M NaC1, 1M
C6HsNa307) buffer and fixed to the membrane by UV crosslinking. Jeffreys' multilocus minisatellite probes 33.15 and 33.6 (Jeffreys et al. 1985a,b) were radiolabelled by primer extension with
[3ap]dCTP. Hybridizations were run overnight at 62 °C in x 1.5
SSC, 0.1% SDS, x 5 Denhardt's solution, and 6% w/v dextran
sulfate. Hybridized filters were washed for 4 x 30 rain at 62 °C in
x 1.5 SSC, 0.1% SDS, and exposed to X-ray film at - 2 0 °C for atleast 24 h (see Fig. 1 for sample autoradiograph).

Interpretation of autoradiographs

Unattributable band analysis
Within each social group, the resident female was paired with each
adult male group member for consideration as the putative parents of each chick. The number of fragments present in an offspring's lane but not in either the male's lane or the female's lane
was recorded as the number of"unattributable bands" (Rabenold
et al. 1990). Except for rare novel bands (mutations producing
alleles of new length; Jeffreys et al. 1988), banding patterns ofoffspring should be entirely attributable to the combination of
banding patterns of their parents. Nonparental dyads should notaccount for all bands in an offspring's lane, provided sufficientvariation is assayed.
The distribution of unattributable bands (Fig. 2) allows calculation of the rate of mutation (i.e., the rate of appearance of bands
unattributable to parental dyads; Jeffreys et al. 1988; Westneat etal. 1990; Rabenold et at. 1990) and calculation era criterion number of unattributable bands for exclusion of a dyad as parental.

IZ~ Assigned[Z3 Excluded

2o

ocG
G-

2
5

0

////
0

1

2

,3

4

5

6

Number of unottributoble bonds
Fig. 2 Frequency distribution of the number of bands, in fingerprints of 19 Galapagos hawk offspring, that could not be accounted for by the mother's fingerprint combined with that of either the
male that was assigned as the father (open bars) of with a male thatwas not assigned (i.e., was excluded; shaded bars) as the father.
Unattributable bands were summed across probes (Jeffreys' 33.15
and 33.6)

Assuming mutations occurred randomly across nestlings and loci,the Poisson probability was 0.0012 that the combined fingerprintsof the two genetic parents would fail to account for two or morebands in a nestling's fingerprint. (The mean occurrence of novel
bands per chick was taken as the expected proportion and was
calculated as one novel band among "best fit" dyads/19 young forwhich there was only one best fit, or 0.05.) Scoring across bothprobes and adding unattributable bands, 18 nestlings were foundto match with single male-female dyads that produced nounattributable bands; all other male-female dyads produced one
or more such bands. For one chick, the best fit parental dyad
produced one unattributable band; all other male-female dyads in85
the group resulted in two or more such bands. The smallest number of unattributable bands found for each of two other nestlings
was two, but in each case one adult male group member had notbeen sampled. Finally, the father of one nestling could not be
identified because three dyads produced zero unattributablebands.

Band-sharing analysis
To corroborate preliminary assignments made on the basis ofunattributable bands, we calculated the proportion of bands
shared by each pair of individuals within each group. This measure of genetic similarity (band-sharing score) was calculated as
2S/(2S + A + B), where S = the number of fragments of indistinguishable mobility and intensity in the two lanes under comparison, A = the number of bands unique to one member of the dyad,
and B = the number of bands unique to the other member of the
dyad (Wetton et al. 1987; Lynch 1990). We asked whether the
distribution of mother-offspring band-sharing values was significantly different from the distribution of father-offspring values (itshould not be if fathers have been correctly identified), andwhether the father-offspring values were different from the distribution of band-sharing values representing dyads consisting of
excluded males and young (father-offspring values should behigher than excluded male-young values if fathers have been correctly identified).
We used Mantel tests (Mantel 1967) to test for differences inlocation between sample distributions of band-sharing scores representing distinct inferential populations. Unlike conventional
analyses which assume that data are independent, the Mantel test
accounts for the interdependent nature of matrix data, where individuals are represented multiple times in pairwise permutations(Schnell et al. 1985). To perform these tests, we compared twosymmetric similarity matrices, a matrix of band-sharing scores
and a corresponding "hypothesis matrix" in which we designatedone of the categories (inferential populations) with one numeral
and the other category with another numeral (Schnell et al. 1985).
We used a permutational analysis to assess the significance of theMantel test result. This analysis was accomplished by randomly
permuting the order of elements of one of the matrices, while
holding constant the order of elements of the other matrix, andperforming a Mantel test for each such permutation. The significance level was thus assessed by comparing the observed Mantel
t-value with its permutational distribution (based on 1000 random permutations; Rohlf 1990). Nominal P values are reported.
(Note that for those sample distributions that were used in two
tests, Bonfcrroni-adjusted P values would be obtained by doubling the nominal P value).
To evaluate whether any of the dyads of males belonging to thesame breeding group might have comprised close relatives, we
assumed that the sample distribution of band-sharing scores fordyads of males belonging to different breeding groups was an
accurate representation of genetic similarity between unrelated
males. We then used the cumulative normal distribution function
to obtain the probability associated with a single outlying bandsharing score from the within-group sample.

Estimation of probability of assignment errors
Using the results from band-sharing analyses, we computed probabilities of misassigning individuals as parents. We thus calculated
the probability that a male other than the actual father could
account for all of the exclusively paternal bands or that a female
other than the actual mother could have provided all of the exclusively maternal bands. These calculations assume that bands assort in an independent fashion (i.e., they are neither linked nor
allelic). Such probabilities were calculated for both unrelated individuals and first-order relatives.

Calculation of expected parentage patterns
We calculated the probability of two chicks in the same broodhaving the same father as I/n, where n = the number of adultmales in the group, assuming all males have the same probabilityof fertilizing each egg. Therefore, the probability of the two chicks
having different fathers is 1 l/n, or (n--1)/n. For more than two
chicks, as when the same social group breeds successfully in 2
years, the probability of y chicks having the same father is n -(y--I).
In a preliminary attempt at evaluating whether reproductive success was biased in favor of some males, we compared these expectations of single versus multiple paternity to our findings. In addition, because mixed paternity was actually more common than
expected under the assumption that reproductive success was randomly distributed among males within a group, we calculated thecumulative binomial probability of observing so few cases of unshared paternity.

Results
Samples used
D N A was extracted f r o m b l o o d samples f r o m 73 individual G a l a p a g o s h a w k s representing 12 social groups.
Ten of the g r o u p s reside o n S a n t i a g o Island a n d two on
S a n t a Fe. Of the three chicks p r o d u c e d o n S a n t a Fe in 2
years, p a t e r n i t y could be d e t e r m i n e d for only one chick;the other two chicks b e l o n g e d to a g r o u p in which two
adult males c o u l d n o t be distinguished genetically. Because of these complications, a n d to r e m o v e a n y o t h e r
between-island differences, we include in this analysis
only the h a w k s f r o m S a n t i a g o (n = 64 h a w k s in tensocial groups). Eight of the ten S a n t i a g o g r o u p s were
sampled in b o t h 1990 a n d 1991, a n d the two r e m a i n i n g
g r o u p s were first m o n i t o r e d in 1991. N i n e g r o u p s p r o d u c e d at least two y o u n g d u r i n g the 2 years c o m b i n e d .
E a c h g r o u p c o n t a i n e d one adult female a n d no female
replacements o c c u r r e d in the eight g r o u p s m o n i t o r e dfor 2 years. T h e g r o u p s c o n t a i n e d f r o m two to eight
adult males, for a total of 31 (blood samples collectedf r o m 29), a n d p r o d u c e d one or two chicks per year, fora total of 25 chicks. Three D N A samples f r o m chicks
were of such low c o n c e n t r a t i o n t h a t a p r o p e r analysis
could n o t be performed. T h e r e m a i n i n g 22 chicks f r o m
ten social g r o u p s f o r m e d the f o u n d a t i o n of o u r assessm e n t of patterns of p a r e n t a g e (Table 1).

D e t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a g e
F o r 19 chicks, we were able to exclude all adult maleg r o u p m e m b e r s except one. T h e d y a d s c o m p r i s i n g theassigned father a n d the female a c c o u n t e d for all(n = 18) or all but one (n = 1) of the chick's bands,
while all o t h e r female-male d y a d s within the g r o u p p r o d u c e d m o r e a t t r i b u t a b l e b a n d s (Fig. 2). To c o r r o b o r a t ethese assignments, we c o m p a r e d the b a n d - s h a r i n g values for assigned f a t h e r - y o u n g d y a d s to those of m o t h e r y o u n g d y a d s a n d to d y a d s consisting of excluded malesa n d y o u n g (Fig. 3). T h e sample distribution of b a n d sharing scores representing m o t h e r - o f f s p r i n g d y a d s

86
TaBle 1 Assignments of paternity within Galapagos hawk breeding groups. Males are identified by their band numbers
Group

Year

No. ofmales

No. ofyoung

Fathers

B3

1990
1991
1990
1991
1990
1991
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1990
1990
1991
1990
1991

8
8
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
3

2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1

B165, B164
B164, B163 or B156; B157
B338, B333
B333, B333
B078
B078
B152
B079
B059
B107, B105
B108
Not B166
A028
A028, D007
B161
Not B161 or B081

B4
S1
$2
$3
$4
$5
T1
T2
T3

group member had not been sampled (Table 1). Considering that fathers were found within all completely-sampled groups, the unsampled male may have been thefather in both cases. The third chick of ambiguousparentage came from an eight-male group in which wewere unable to exclude three of the eight males (eachproduced zero unattributable bands and band-sharing
scores of 0.73, 0.70, and 0.71; Table 1).

Parentage: patterns within years
Six two-chick broods were sampled. Parentage was assigned for both chicks in five of these broods. Four(80%) of these broods had shared paternity (Table 1).
An additional two-chick brood produced in group B3 in1991 had one chick for which three males could not be
excluded, but those three males did not include the malethat sired the other chick in the brood. Thus, five of six
broods showed mixed paternity.

0.5

Excluded male-young dyads
0.4

Parentage: patterns between years

O3
-(D
0

>~

0,2

"-0

0.1

o

0.0
0.0

to

+d

0.3

i

J

0.3

0.4

i

0.5

2

0.3

171 F a t h e r - o f f s p r i n g
ktot h e r - o f f s p r i n g

0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.6

0,7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Ad

Parent-offspring dyads
0.4

0_

i

0.2

0.5

o

El_

i

0.1

i

i

L

i

i

0,1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Proportion of bands shared

Across groups, eight males who were fathers in 1990
were still present in groups that produced offspring forwhich parentage was assigned in 1991. Four of thesemales were fathers in 1991, and three were replaced as
fathers by other males (who had also been present in
1990; Table 1). In the case of the unassigned chick in B3,
one of the males who had sired young in that group in1990 was excluded, while the other successful breeder
from 1990 remained as one of the three males not excluded as that chick's father. Of the six groups that produced young for which paternity was determined inboth years, five showed changes in identity of males
siring young.

Fig. 3 Distributions of band-sharing scores (proportions of bands
shared) for dyads of Galapagos hawks taken from HaeIII digests
hybridized with Jeffreys' probe 33.15. Each dyad consists of anestling and an adult male excluded as that individual's father (toppanel; n = 48), and either an assigned father and his offspring(n = 19) or a mother and one of her offspring (n = 22; bottom
panel). Triangles indicate means (bottom panel: father-offspringmean = 0.81, mother-offspring mean = 0.78)(2 = 0.78) did not differ significantly from that representing father-offspring dyads (2 = 0.81, P = 0.25). The
sample distribution of band-sharing scores representing
father-offspring dyads was shifted significantly to theright of that representing dyads consisting of a chickand an adult male excluded as that chick's father(2 = 0.63; P = 0.001, one-tailed; Fig. 3).
The three remaining chicks (of the 22 included in theanalysis) resulted in ambiguous assignments. For two
chicks in each of two groups, all adult males sampledwere excluded as fathers on the basis of their producing
two or more unattributable bands and having low
band-sharing values, but in each case one adult maleConfidence in assignments
Mean band-sharing scores for dyads of unrelated individuals (x in Table 2) were used to derive q, the mean
allele frequency across the family of loci screened by theprobe. The derived q allows calculation of the probability of mistakenly identifying individuals as parents(Table 2; Jeffreys et al. 1985a; Georges et al. 1988). We
calculated the probability that the fingerprint of an unrelated male could account for all of the exclusively paternal bands (p in Table 2), since we would assign asparents the members of any dyad whose combined fingerprints accounted for all bands in the chick's fingerprint (see above). This likelihood is equal to the probability that the misassigned male shared any band withthe actual father (or x, the proportion of bands sharedby unrelated individuals) raised to the number of paternally derived bands. The final probability of misassigning an unrelated bird is equal to the product of theprobabilities produced by Jeffreys' probe 33.15 (0.12)

87
Table 2 Summary of the calculation of error rates in assignments of parentage in
Galapagos hawk groups,
based on multilocus minisatellite D N A fingerprinting using
two probes

Symbol

X

f

q
S
O

Where x = 2q - q2 (Jeffreys
et al. 1985a)b Where s = [(4 + 5q - 6q 2 + q3)/
4(2--q)] (Georges et al. 1988)° Where o = [(1 + q - q2)/(2 - q)](Georges et al. 1988)

m

P
Px
Pr

Probe

Meaning

Mean proportion bands shared by nonrelatives
Mean no. bands scored
Mean allele frequency a
Expected band-sharing between siblings b
Expected parent-offspring band-sharing °No. maternal bands per chick (=fo)
No. exclusively paternal bands ( = f - m )Probability of misassigning an unrelated
individual as parent ( = x p)
Probability of misassigning a first-orderrelative as parent ( = sp)

and probe 33.6 (0.38), since the probes detect different
minisatellite sequences. The calculated probability(0.045) of misassigning paternity to an unrelated male is
likewise the probability of mistakenly assigning an unrelated female as mother.
We also calculated the probability of misassigning as
a parent some closely related adult, such as a brother of
the actual father. We thus calculated the probability
that the fingerprint of an uncle Could account for all of
the exclusively paternal bands in the fingerprint of hisniece or nephew. Stated otherwise, we calculated theprobability that the uncle shared any band with the actual father (s, the expected proportion of bands sharedby siblings; Table 2) raised to the number of exclusively
paternally derived bands. The calculated rate at which afirst-order relative (e.g., brother) of the actual parent
would be mistakenly identified as the parent, using bothprobes 33.15 and 33.6, is 0.21. However, we provide evidence below that males within groups were typically not
close relatives.

o,5
0.4

33.15

33.6

Both

0.63
18.8
0.39
0.79
0.77
14.5
4.3

0.74
19.1
0.49
0.85
0.83
15.9
3.2

0.12

0.38

0.045

0.36

0.59

0.21

fwthnr°upmae
m°dYad

0.3
0.2
0,1
03
-(~

0.0 i
0.0

C~
>-,
-0

0.5

,

i

0.1

,

i

,

0.2

i

i

0.3

0.4

Between-group,

["'7

0,5

male-male

0.6

0.7

0.8

i

0.9

1.0

dyods

0,4

0

o.2

-~

0.1

~k_

0,0
0.0

O_

0.5

o

"'"-3
'

I

I

I

0.1

0.2

0,3

0.4

Father-offspring

0,5

/

I

I

0.8

D.7

0.8

0.9

1.o

0.5

D,7

0.8

0.9

1.0

dyads

0.4
0..3
0.2
0,1

Relatedness among adult males

We asked whether adult male group members appeared
to be related by comparing band-sharing values of within-group male dyads to those of both presumably unrelated dyads (males from different groups) and to dyads
consisting of assigned fathers and their offspring (Fig. 4).
Although there is broad overlap among distributions of
unrelated and first-order relatives, the distribution of
band-sharing scores for within-group male dyads(2 = 0.61) was statistically indistinguishable from that
representing dyads of males belonging to different
breeding groups (2 = 0.61; P = 0.96, Fig. 4). Males belonging to the same group were typically less similar
genetically than were fathers and their offspring(2 = 0.81; P = 0.002, Fig. 4). Likewise, males belonging
to different groups were typically less similar geneticallythan were fathers and their offspring (P = 0.001, onetailed; Fig. 4). Overall, males belonging to the same
breeding group appeared to be no more closely related
than males belonging to different groups. However, one

0.0
0.0

i

i

i

i

i

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Proportion of bonds shoredFig. 4 Distributions of band-sharing scores (proportions of bands
shared) for dyads of Galapagos hawks. Each dyad consists of two
males belonging to the same breeding group (top panel; n = 40),
two males belonging to different breeding groups (middle panel;n = 20), or an assigned father and one of his offspring (sex unknown; bottom panel; n = 19). Triangles indicate means

dyad of males belonging to the same group had a bandsharing score (0.84) that fell above the mean father-offspring score (0.81) and fell well above the mean of thesample distribution of band-sharing scores for betweengroup, male-male dyads (0.61, P < 0.001, Fig. 4). These
results suggest that one of the families ($5) contained
two adult males that were close relatives (e.g., brothers
or father and son). Otherwise, males did not appear to
be associated with kin.

88
Table 3 Binomial probabilities of unshared paternity in
Galapagos hawk groups given
the number of adult males
and number of young produced, assuming males withingroups have equal probabilityof siring each young. Whether
paternity was unshared andnumber of assigned fathers arealso shown. Groups (fromTable 1) with at least two
chicks within or between
years are included

Group

Year

No. ofmales

No. ofyoung

Probability
same father

Same?

No. offathers

B3

1990
1991
Combined
1990
1991
Combined
Combined
Combined
1991
1991
Combined
Combined

8
8
8
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
4

2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
2

0.125
0.125
0.002
0.50
0.50
0.125
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.50
0.25
0.125

No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No

2
2
3-4
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2

B4
S1
$3
$4
T2
T3

0.30

Evaluation of patterns of mixed paternity

0.25

Evidence for a mating system characterized by asymmetrical reproductive success among males of the samegroup would be provided by a high incidence of unshared paternity. However, among six two-chick broods(Table 3: B3, 1990; B3 1991; B4, 1990; B4, 1991; $4,
1991; T2, 1991), in only one case (B4, 1991) did the twochicks have the same father. (Probabilities of bothyoung being sired by the same male, calculated for eachbrood, are presented in Table 3.) This result is superficially suggestive of an egalitarian system in which reproductive success may be more evenly distributed among
males than one would expect if every male in a group isassumed to have the same random chance of siring eachyoung. To evaluate whether there were significantly fewer cases of unshared paternity (or, equivalently, morecases of mixed paternity) than expected under this assumption, we summed the probability of observing zerocases (the product of the six group-specific probabilities)
and the six group-specific probabilities of observing one
case [P( _< 1 case of unshared paternity) = 0.31]. Similarly, the observation of one case of unshared paternity (S1,1990 and 1991) among three cases where a group produced one young in each year (S1, $3, and T3) did not
differ significantly from expectation (P = 0.67). We thus
conclude that the incidence of unshared paternity, in asmall number of Galapagos hawk groups, was not significantly lower than expected assuming males of thesame group are equally likely to sire each young.
P r o n o u n c e d asymmetries in the reproductive successof males belonging to the same breeding group havebeen reported for other cooperatively breeding species(e.g., Rabenold et al. 1990). We therefore evaluated theprobability of our finding of only one case of unsharedpaternity (among the six two-chick groups) for a continuum of hypothetical levels of reproductive asymmetry.
In this evaluation, the advantage of any asymmetry accrued to one male, and the disadvantage was divided
equally a m o n g all remaining males. Figure 5 shows arapid decay in the probability of finding so little unshared paternity as the hypothetical degree of asymmetry increases. Findings like ours would be very unlikely

0.20
z3
0.15

2

0.10
0.05
0.00
20

40

60

80

1 O0

HypotheticGI Gsymmetry (%)
Fig. 5 The probability of observing fewer than two cases of unshared paternity among six two-chick Galapagos hawk broods(Table 3: B3, 1990; B3, 1991; B4, 1990; B4, 1991; $4, 1991; T2,
1991) evaluated for a continuum of hypothetical asymmetries in
the underlying probability that one male versus all others in thegroup will sire any given young. To clarify, if the hypotheticalasymmetry were 0%, then each male in the group would have thesame probability of siring any given young. If the asymmetry were50%, then the probability for one male in a two-male groupwould be 0.75 and that for the other male would be 0.25. In aneight-male group, the probability for one male would be ~0.19
and that for each of the seven other males would be ~0.12

if actual reproductive success were even moderately
asymmetrical among males within groups. Our results
are thus consistent with the idea that males belonging to
the same group had equivalent probabilities of siring
any given young.

Discussion
Our DNA-fingerprinting analysis of paternity in Galapagos hawks revealed extensive mixed paternity bothwithin broods and across broods produced by the samegroup during consecutive years (Tables 1 and 3). In fact,
only two cases of unshared paternity were found (Table3). One of these involved a male within a two-malegroup who fathered two chicks in 1991 (B4). The other
involved a male who fathered a single young in 1990
(when he was a member of a two-male group) and an-

89other young in 1991 (when the group contained a third males alternate their copulations with the female, aschedule the female might control.
adult male).
Any form of cooperation promoting little variation
This extensive "paternity-sharing" among Galapagos hawk males belonging to the same group was in male reproductive success might not be stable instatistically consistent with the idea that paternity is groups that contain too many males. For one group, therandomly distributed among males within groups, with unusually large eight-male group (B3), we have counted
males apparently having equivalent probabilities of sir- copulations by each male. The male that copulated theing each young. In fact, the proportion of broods multi- most times and the male that copulated the fewest times
ply sired (one of six) was actually less than the outcome each sired one offspring in 1990 (L. DeLay et al., unexpected to occur most commonly (two of six), assum- publ.). The mate who copulated most in 1990 was not
ing randomness. The finding of only one case of un- excluded as the father of one of the 1991 offspring,
shared paternity would be significantly less than expect- though this is the case where two other males also were
ed if we were to assume that one male had even a rela- not excluded, and the second 1991 offspring was sired
tively minor advantage over the others (Fig. 5). [A pro- by yet another male. Thus, we found that three males
nounced asymmetry in male reproductive success has sired the four young produced by that group, despite thebeen found in other cooperatively breeding birds (e.g., unusually high frequency of aggressive interactions
Rabenold et al. 1990).] Our results are thus consistent among males and corresponding (minor) variation
with behavioral observations that indicate little or no among males in copulation frequency. Virtually no
dominance structuring or mating advantage among dominance behavior was observed among males bemale group members (L. DeLay et al; unpubl.), and in longing to smaller groups, particularly two-malefact they prompt the speculation that paternity may ac- groups, and anecdotal observations suggest that coputually be more evenly shared than expected under the lations were approximately equally divided amongassumption that each male in a group has the same males in these groups.
Although our results substantiate earlier reports derandom chance of siring each young.
scribing
the mating system of Galapagos hawks as a
Galapagos hawks usually fledge only one young per
year. That individual disperses from its natal territory form of cooperative polyandry, larger samples overand joins flocks of nonbreeding birds until it is mature multiple years will be needed to determine whether paand able to establish itself in a breeding group. Thus, it ternity-sharing is truly egalitarian or whether subtle biis unlikely that adult males in a breeding group are rela- ases in male reproductive success exist. We have seentives, as this would typically require their associating virtually no evidence of dominance interactions (includwith kin with whom they have had no prior experience ing mate-guarding) in groups of the most common size;(Faaborg et al. 1980; Faaborg 1986). Our fingerprinting therefore, if such variation in male reproductive successdata support this supposition, as males belonging to the is revealed by future work, sperm competition (Birksame group were not significantly more genetically sim- head 1987; Birkhead and Moller 1992), including variailar than were males belonging to different groups but tion in male fertility, would be a plausible contributing
were significantly less similar to one another than were mechanism. Future monitoring of both reproductive
fathers and sons (Fig. 4). If groups are formed by wan- success and group reproductive behavior should allow
dering males who coalesce to establish new territories, us to better characterize the details of this interesting
related males could end up together in a group just by mating system.
chance, but we would expect this to be uncommon. In
our study, such an association between two closely re- Aeknnwledgements This is contribution :tt:497 of the Charles
Darwin Foundation. Field work was accomplished with the finanlated males might have occurred once (see top panel, cial support of the National Science Foundation Science in DevelFig. 4).
oping Countries Program (NSF INT-8901284) and the Research
The maintenance of cooperative polyandry in Gala- Council of the Graduate School, University of Missouri-Columpagos hawks, therefore, cannot be ascribed to inclusive bia. We have benefitted greatly from the support and cooperationof the Servicio Parque National Galapagos and Charles Darwin
fitness gains resulting from interactions among kin Research Station. Numerous students from the Universidad(Hamilton 1964). Instead, this system appears to meet Catdlica in Quito and the University of Missouri-Columbia
the conditions necessary for stable cooperation among helped with gathering blood samples and nest observations. Labunrelated individuals (e.g., Axelrod and Hamilton 1981; oratory analyses were conducted with the support of the Ohio
University College of Biological Sciences. We thank Errin
Lima 1989). Males remain in the same group year after State
O'Connell, Robert Dorado, Kim Lundy and especially Tigerin
year, and thus have repeated pairwise interactions and Peare for their help in the laboratory. Jeffreys' probes were madeundoubtedly recognize one another. Given these long- available by ICI Cellmark Diagnostics.
term associations among males and considering ourcurrent findings, it will be of interest in future work to
ask whether males actually share paternity more equally References
than expected under the assumption of randomly disR, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation.
tributed reproductive success. Clarification of mecha- Axelrod
Science 211 : 1390-1396
nisms that might promote such egalitarian paternity- Birkhead TR (1987) Sperm competition in birds. Trends Ecol Evol
sharing would also be of interest. One possibility is that
2:268-272

90
Birkhead TR, Moller AP (1992) Sperm competition in birds. Academic Press, London
Faaborg J (1986) Reproductive success and survivorship of theGalapagos hawk Buteo galapagoensis: potential costs andbenefits of cooperatively polyandry. Ibis 128:337-347
Faaborg J, Patterson CB (1981) The characteristics and occurrence of cooperative polyandry. Ibis 123:477-484
Faaborg J, Vries Tj de, Patterson CB, Griffin CR (1980) Preliminary observations on the occurrence and evolution ofpolyandry in the Galapagos hawk (Buteo gaIapagoensis). Auk
97:581-590
Georges M, Lequarre A-S, Castelli M, Hanset R, Vassart G (1988)
DNA fingerprinting in domestic animals using four different
minisatellite probes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 47:127-131
Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour.
I, II. J Theoret Biol 7:1-52
Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985a) Hypervariable'minisatellite' regions in human DNA. Nature 314:67-73
Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985b) Individual-specific'fingerprints' of human DNA. Nature 316:76-79
Jeffreys AJ, Royle NJ, Wilson V, Wong Z (1988) Spontaneous
mutation rates to new length alleles at tandem-repetitive hypervariable loci in human DNA. Nature 332:278-281
Lima SL (1989) Iterated prisoner's dilemma: an approach to evolutionarily stable cooperation. Am Nat 134:828-834
Longmire JL, Lewis AK, Brown NC, Buckingham JM, Clark LM,
Jones MD, Meincke L J, Meyne J, Ratliff RL, Ray FA, Wagner

RP, Moyzis RK (1988) Isolation and molecular characterization of a highly polymorphic centromeric tandem repeat in thefamily Falconidae. Genomics 2:14-24
Lynch M (1990) The similarity index and DNA fingerprinting.
Mol Biol Evol 7:478M84
Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209-220
Oring LW (1982) Avian mating systems. Avian Biol 6:1-92
Packer C, Gilbert DA, Pusey AE, O'Brien SJ (1991) A molecular
genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions.
Nature 351:562-565
Rabenold PP, Rabenold KN, Piper WH, Haydock J, Zack SW(1990) Shared paternity revealed by genetic analysis in cooperatively breeding tropical wrens. Nature 348:538-540
Rohlf FJ (1990) NTSYS-pc: Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system, version 1.60. Applied Biostatistics, Setauket
Schnell GD, Watt D J, Douglas ME (1985) Statistical comparisonof proximity matrices: applications in animal behaviour. Anim
Behav 33:239-253
Westneat DF, Sherman PW, Morton ML (1990) The ecology andevolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Curr Ornithol
7:331-369
Wetton JH, Carter RE, Parkin DT, Walters D (1987) Demographic study of a wild house sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327:147-149