Mate choice for multiple ornaments in the California quail, Callipepla californica

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 69-81

  Calkins, Jennifer Devlin ^a,b   Burley, Nancy Tyler ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GAMEBIRD; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

CALLIPEPLA CALIFORNICA; PHASIANIDAE;

EID: 0037267073     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2002.2041     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Backwell, P. R. Y. & Passmore, N. I. 1996. Time constraints and multiple choice criteria in the sampling behaviour and mate choice of the fiddler crab, Uca annulipes. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38, 407-416.
3. Badyaev, A. V., Hill, G. E., Dunn, P. O. & Glen, J. C. 2001. Plumage color as a composite trait: developmental and functional integration of sexual ornamentation. American Naturalist, 158, 221-235.
4. Barton, N. H. 1989. Founder effect speciation. In: Speciation and Its Consequences (Ed. by D. Otte & J. A. Endler), pp. 229-256. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
5. Basolo, A. L. 1998. Evolutionary change in a receiver bias: a comparison of female preference functions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 2223-2228.
6. Bennett, A. D., Cuthill, I. C. & Norris, K. J. 1994. Sexual selection and the mismeasure of color. American Naturalist, 144, 848-860.
7. Bowler, P. J. 1996. Life's Splendid Drama. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Bradbury, J. W. & Vehrencamp, S. L.. 1998. Principles of Animal Communication. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
9. Brooks, R. & Caithness, N. 1995. Manipulating a seemingly nonpreferred male ornament reveals a role in female choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 261, 7-10.
10. Brooks, R. & Endler, J. A. 2001. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution, 55, 1644-1655.
11. Brown, D. E. & Gutiérrez, R. J. 1980. Sex ratios, sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in quails. Journal of Wildlife Management, 44, 198-202.
12. Brown, D. E., Hagelin, J. C., Taylor, M. & Galloway, J. 1998. Gambel's quail (Callipepla gambelii). In: The Birds of North America. No. 321 (Ed. by A. Poole & F. Gill). Philadelphia: Birds of North America.
13. Burley, N. 1981. Mate choice by multiple criteria in a monogamous species. American Naturalist, 117, 515-528.
14. Burley, N. T., Price, D. K. & Zann., R. A. 1992. Bill color, reproduction and condition effects in wild and domesticated zebra finches. Auk, 109, 13-23.
15. Calkins, J. D. 2000. Dynamic mate choice and mating behavior in California quail. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine.
16. Calkins, J. D., Hagelin, J. C. & Lott, D. F. 1999. California quail (Callipepla californica). In: The Birds of North America. No. 473 (Ed. by A. Poole & F. Gill). Philadelphia: Birds of North America.
17. Christy, J. H. & Salmon, M. 1991. Comparative studies of reproductive behaviors in mantis shrimp and fiddler crabs. American Zoologist, 31, 329-337.
18. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J. Murray.
19. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
20. Emlen, J. T., Jr. 1939. Seasonal movements of a low-density valley-quail population. Journal of Wildlife Management, 3, 118-130.
21. Gibson, R. M. & Bradbury, J. W. 1985. Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 18, 117-123.
22. Gibson, R. M. & Langen, T. A. 1996. How do animals choose their mates? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 468-470.
23. Hagelin, J. C. 1999. Sexual selection, plumage ornamentation of Gambel's and scaled quail. Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico.
24. Hagelin, J. C. & Ligon, J. D. 2001. Female quail prefer testosterone-mediated traits, rather than the ornate plumage of males. Animal Behaviour, 61, 465-476.
25. Haycock, K., Roth, J., Gagnon, J., Finzer, W. F., Soper, C. & Spector, P. 1992. Statview. Berkeley, California: Abacus Concepts.
26. Hill, J. A., Enstrom, D. A., Ketterson, E. D., Nolan, V., Jr & Zigenfus, C. 1999. Mate choice based on static versus dynamic secondary sexual traits in the dark-eyed junco. Behavioral Ecology, 10, 91-96.
27. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 521, 1-7.
28. Houde, A. E. 1997. Sex, Color and Mate Choice in Guppies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
29. Huxley, J. S. 1942. Evolution, the Modern Synthesis. London: Allen & Unwin.
30. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowksi, A. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution, 45, 1431-1442.
31. Janetos, A. C. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 7, 107-112.
32. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Cambridge Biological Review, 72, 283-327.
33. Johnsgard, P. A. 1973. Grouse and quails of North America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
34. Johnson, K. 1988. Sexual selection in pinyon jays. I. Female choice and male-male competition. Animal Behaviour, 36, 1038-1047.
35. Johnstone, R. A. 1995. Honest advertisement of multiple qualities using multiple signals. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 177, 87-94.
36. Kaneshiro, K. Y. 1980. Sexual isolation, speciation and the direction of evolution. Evolution, 34, 437-444.
37. Leopold, A. S. 1977. The California Quail. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38. Lewin, V. 1963. Reproduction and development of young in a population of California quail. Condor, 65, 249-275.
39. Ligon, J. D. & Zwartjes, P. W. 1995. Ornate plumage of male red junglefowl does not influence mate choice by females. Animal Behaviour, 49, 117-125.
40. Marchetti, K. 1998. The evolution of multiple male traits in the yellow-browed leafwarbler. Animal Behaviour, 55, 361-376.
41. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
42. Møller, A. P. & Pomiankowski, A. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32, 167-176.
43. Møller, A. P., Saino, N., Taramino, G., Galeotti, P. & Ferrario, S. 1998. Paternity and multiple signaling: effects of a secondary sexual character and song on paternity in the barn swallow. American Naturalist, 151, 236-242.
44. Moore, A. J. 1990. The inheritance of social dominance, mating behaviour and attractiveness to mates in male Nauphoeta cinerea. Animal Behaviour, 39, 388-397.
45. Nei, M., Maruyama, T. & Wu, C-I. 1983. Models of evolution of reproductive isolation. Genetics, 103, 557-579.
46. Omland, K. E. 1996a. Female mallard mating preferences for multiple male ornaments 1. Natural variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39, 353-360.
47. Omland, K. E. 1996b. Female mallard mating preferences for multiple male ornaments 2. Experimental variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39, 361-366.
48. Otte, D. 1989. Speciation in Hawaiian crickets. In: Speciation and Its Consequences (Ed. by D. Otte & J. A. Endler), pp. 482-526. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
49. Petrie, M., Halliday, T. & Sanders, C. 1991. Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour, 41, 323-331.
50. Qvarnström, A., Pärt, T. & Sheldon, B. C. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature, 405, 344-347.
51. Real, L. A. 1990. Behavioral Mechanisms in Evolutionary Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. Reid, M. L. & Weatherhead, P. J. 1990. Mate-choice criteria of Ipswitch sparrows, the importance of variability. Animal Behaviour, 40, 538-544.
53. Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilczynski, W. & Rand, A. S. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature, 343, 66-67.
54. Stokes, A. W. & Williams, H. W. 1971. Courtship feeding in gallinaceous birds. Auk, 88, 543-599.
55. Strecker, U. & Kodric-Brown, A. 1999. Mate recognition systems in a species flock of Mexican pupfish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 927-935.
56. Wagner, W. E., Jr. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1029-1042.
57. White, D. J. & Galef, B. G., Jr. 1999. Affiliative preferences are stable and predict mate choices in both sexes of Japanese quail, Coturnix japonica. Animal Behaviour, 58, 865-871.
58. Williams, H. W. 1969. Vocal behavior of adult California quail. Auk, 86, 631-659.
59. Wittenberger, K. F. 1983. Tactics of mate choice. In: Mate Choice (Ed by P. Bateson) pp. 435-447. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Zuk, M., Thornhill, R., Ligon, J. D. & Johnson, K. 1990. Parasites and mate choice in red jungle fowl. American Zoologist, 30, 235-244.
61. Zuk, M., Ligon, J. D. & Thornhill, R. 1992. Effects of experimental manipulation of male secondary sex characters on female mate preference in red jungle fowl. Animal Behaviour, 44, 999-1006.