Coevolution of elaborated male display traits in the spotted bowerbird: An experimental test of the threat reduction hypothesis

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 1121-1128

  Borgia, Gerald ^a   Presgraves, Daven C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; MALE BEHAVIOR; PASSERINE;

CHLAMYDERA MACULATA;

EID: 0032211719     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0908     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton University Press. Princeton.
2. Arnold S. Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism. Mate Choice. 1983;Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. p. 67-107.
3. Bakker T. C. M., Pomiankowski A. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 8:1995;129-171.
4. Basolo A. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 228:1990;340-344.
5. Berglund A., Bisazza A., Pilastro A. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation for traits of dual utility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 58:1996;385-389.
6. Borgia G. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Blum M. S., Blum N. A. Sexual selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. 1979;27-49 Academic Press. New York.
7. Borgia G. Bower quality, number of decorations and mating success of male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonoirhynchus violaceus. Animal Behaviour. 33:1985;266-271.
8. Borgia G. Sexual selection in bowerbirds. Scientific American. 254:1986;92-101.
9. Borgia G. A critical review of sexual selection models. Bradbury J. W., Andersson M. B. Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. 1987;55-66 J. Wiley. Chichester.
10. Borgia G. The costs of display in the non-resource-based mating system of the satin bowerbird. American Naturalist. 141:1993;729-743.
11. Borgia G. Threat reduction as a cause of differences in bower architecture, bower decoration and male display in two closely related bowerbirdsChlamydera nuchalisC. maculata. Emu. 95:1995a;1-12.
12. Borgia G. Complex male display and female choice in the spotted bowerbird: specialized functions for different bower decorations. Animal Behaviour. 49:1995b;291-301.
13. Borgia G. Why do bowerbirds build bowers. American Scientist. 83:1995c;542-550.
14. Borgia G., Mueller U. Bower destruction, decoration stealing and female choice in the spotted bowerbird. (Chlamydera maculata. Emu. 92:1992;11-18.
15. Breden F., Gherardt C., Butlin R. K. Female choice and genetic correlations. Trends in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. 9:1994;343.
16. Brooks R., Caithness N. Manipulating a seemingly non-preferred male ornament reveals a role in female choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 216:1995;7-10.
17. Burley N. The organization of behavior and the evolution of sexually selected traits. Ornithological Monographs. 37:1985;22-24.
18. Fisher R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1930;Clarendon Press. Oxford.
19. Fisher R. A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 12th edn. 1954;Oliver & Boyd. Edinburgh.
20. Gibson R. M., Bradbury J. W., Vehrencamp S. L. Mate choice in lekking sage grouse revisited: the roles of vocal display, female site fidelity, and copying. Behavioral Ecology. 2:1991;165-180.
21. Gilliard E. T. Birds of Paradise and Bowerbirds. 1969;Weindenfield & Nicholson. London.
22. Hasson O. Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 235:1989;383-406.
23. Hasson O. The role of amplifiers in sexual selection. An integration of the amplifying and the Fisherian mechanisms. Evolutionary Ecology. 4:1990;277-289.
24. Hasson O. Sexual displays as amplifiers: practical examples with an emphasis on feather decorations. Behavioral Ecology. 2:1991;189-197.
25. Höglund J., Alatalo R. V. Leks. 1995;Princeton University Press. Princeton.
26. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. The evolution of sexual preferences for multiple handicaps. Evolution. 48:1994;853-867.
27. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 377:1995;420-422.
28. Kirkpatrick M. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution. 50:1996;2125-2140.
29. Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature. 350:1991;33-38.
30. Kusmierski R., Borgia G., Crozier R., Chan B. Molecular information on bowerbird phylogeny and the evolution of exaggerated male characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 6:1993;737-752.
31. Kusmierski R., Borgia G., Uy A., Crozier R. Molecular information on bowerbird phylogeny and the evolution of exaggerated male characters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 264:1997;307-313.
32. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 78:1981;3721-3762.
33. Loffredo C., Borgia G. Sexual selection, mating systems, and the evolution of avian acoustical display. American Naturalist. 128:1986;773-794.
34. McDonald D. Correlates of male mating success in a lekking bird with male-male competition. Animal Behaviour. 37:1989;1007-1022.
35. Marshall A. J. Bower-birds, Their Displays and Breeding Cycles. 1954;Oxford University Press. Oxford.
36. Møller A.P., Pomiankowski A. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 32:1993;167-176.
37. Nichols R. A., Butlin R. K. Does runaway sexual selection work in finite populations. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2:1989;299-313.
38. Nichols R. A., Butlin R.K. Sexual preference and genetic correlations. Trends in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. 7:1992;29-30.
39. Omland K. Female mallard mating preferences for multiple male ornaments. I. Natural variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 39:1996a;353-360.
40. Omland K. Female mallard mating preferences for multiple male ornaments. II. Experimental variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 39:1996b;361-366.
41. Petrie M. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature. 171:1994;598-599.
42. Pomiankowski A., Iwasa Y. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 253:1993;173-181.
43. Prum R. O. Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of display behavior in the neotropical manakins (Aves: Pipridae). Ethology. 84:1990;202-231.
44. Ryan M., Fox J. H., Wilczynski W., Rand S. Sexual selection by sensory exploitation in the frogPhysalaemus pustulosus. Nature. 343:1991;66-67.
45. Schluter D., Price T. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 253:1993;117-122.
46. Statsoft. Statistica. 1995;Statsoft. Tulsa.
47. Sokal R., Rohlf J. Biometry. 3rd edn. 1995;W. H. Freeman. San Francisco.
48. Turelli M. Heritable genetic variation via mutation-selection balance: Lerch's zeta meets abdominal bristle. Theoretical Popu-lation Biology. 25:1984;138-193.
49. Vellenga R. E. Distribution of bowers of the satin bowerbird at Leura, NSW, with notes on parental care, development and independence of the young. Emu. 80:1980;97-102.
50. West-Eberhard M. J. Sexual selection, social compe-tition and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology. 58:1983;155-183.
51. Zuk M., Johnson K., Thornhill R. Mechanisms of female choice in the red jungle fowl. Evolution. 44:1990;477-485.
52. Zuk M., Ligon D., Thornhill R. Effects of experimental manipulation of secondary sex characters in the red junglefowl. Animal Behaviour. 44:1992;999-1006.