Survival of male scarlet-tufted malachite sunbirds (Nectarinia johnstoni) on Mount Kenya and the influence of ornamentation

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 125-133

  Evans, Matthew R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Ornaments; Phenotypic variation; Sexual selection; Survival; Tropical birds

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTATION; PASSERINE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SURVIVAL; TAIL FEATHER; VIABILITY;

KENYA;

AVES; LOBELIA; LOBELIA TELEKII; NECTARINIA JOHNSTONI; SIPROETA STELENES;

EID: 0141459196     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00224.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alatalo RV, Hoglund J, Lundberg A. 1991. Lekking in the black grouse - a test of male viability. Nature 352: 155-156.
2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP. 1999. Understanding information criteria for selection among capture-recapture or ring recovery models. Bird Study 46 (Suppl.): 14-21.
3. Andersson M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.
4. Andersson S. 1992. Female preference for long tails in lekking Jackson's windowbirds: experimental evidence. Animal Behaviour 43: 379-388.
5. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6. Balmford A, Read AF. 1991. Testing alternative models of sexual selection through female choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 274-276.
7. Brooks R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406: 67-70.
8. Butlin RK, Day TH. 1985. Adult size longevity and fecundity in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity 54: 107-110.
9. Coe MJ. 1967. The ecology of the alpine zone of Mount Kenya. The Hague: Junk.
10. Cotgreave P, Harvey PJ. 1994. Evenness of abundance in bird communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 365-374.
11. Endler JA. 1980. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34: 76-91.
12. Evans MR. 1991. The size of adornments in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird varies with environmental conditions. Animal Behaviour 42: 797-803.
13. Evans MR. 1996. Nectar and flower production of Lobelia telekii inflorescences, and their influence on territorial behaviour of the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird (Nectarinia johnstoni). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 57: 89-105.
14. Evans MR, Hatchwell BJ. 1992a. An experimental study of male adornment in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird: I the role of pectoral tufts in territory defence. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 413-419.
15. Evans MR, Hatchwell BJ. 1992b. An experimental study of adornment in the scarlet tufted malachite sunbird: II the role of the elongated tail in mate choice and experimental evidence for a handicap. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 421-427.
16. Evans MR, Hatchwell BJ. 1993. New slants on ornament asymmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 251: 171-177.
17. Evans MR, Thomas ALR. 1992. The aerodynamic and mechanical consequences of elongated tails in the scarlet tufted malachite sunbird: Measuring the cost of a handicap. Animal Behaviour 43: 337-347.
18. Fisher R. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
19. Göransson G, von Schantz T, Froberg I, Helgée A, Wittzell H. 1990. Male characteristics, male viability and harem size in the pheasant Phasianus colchicus. Animal Behaviour 40: 89-104.
20. Grafen A. 1990a. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144: 473-516.
21. Grafen A. 1990b. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144: 517-546.
22. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Burke T. 1999. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400: 358-360.
23. Hoelzer GA. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 38: 1067-1078.
24. Hoikkala A, Aspi J, Suvanto L. 1998. Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality in an insect species, Drosophila montana. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 265: 503-508.
25. Houde AE. 1987. Mate choice based upon naturally occurring color-pattern variation in a guppy population. Evolution 41: 1-10.
26. Johnston JP, Peach WJ, Gregory RD, White SA. 1997. Survival rates of tropical and temperate passerines: a Trinidadian perspective. American Naturalist 150: 771-789.
27. Johnstone RA. 1995. Honest advertisement of multiple qualities using multiple signals. Journal of Theoretical Biology 177: 87-94.
28. Johnstone RA, Grafen A. 1992. Error-prone signalling. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 248: 229-233.
29. Karr JR, Nichols JD, Klimkiewicz MK, Brawn JD. 1990. Survival rates of birds of tropical and temperate forests: will the dogma survive? American Naturalist 136: 277-291.
30. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broekhoven C, Dhondt AA. 1992. Extra-pair paternity results from female preferences for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357: 494-496.
31. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
32. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH. 1984. Truth in advertising: the kinds of trait favoured by sexual selection. American Naturalist 124: 309-323.
33. Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S. 1996. Sexual selection in a wolf spider: male drumming activity, body size and viability. Evolution 50: 1977-1981.
34. Lebreton J-D, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR. 1992. Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62: 67-118.
35. Mappes J, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Parri S. 1996. Viability costs of condition-dependent sexual male display in a drumming wolf spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 243: 145-148.
36. Martin TE. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecological Monographs 65: 101-127.
37. Martin TE, Clobert J. 1996. Nest predation and avian life-history evolution in Europe versus North America: a possible role for humans? American Naturalist 147: 1028-1046.
38. Møller AP. 1988. Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in the monogamous swallow. Nature 332: 640-642.
39. Møller AP. 1991. Viability is positively related to degree of ornamentation in male swallows. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 243: 145-148.
40. Møller AP, Alatalo RV. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 266: 85-91.
41. Norris KJ. 1993. Heritable variation in a plumage indicator of viability in male great tits Parus major. Nature 362: 537-539.
42. Petrie M. 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371: 598-599.
43. Pomiankowski A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work - sometimes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 231: 123-145.
44. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 260: 21-29.
45. Qvarnström A. 1999. Genotype-by-environment interactions in the determination of the size of a secondary sexual character in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Evolution 53: 1564-1572.
46. Sheldon BC, Merilä J, Qvarnström A, Gustafsson L, Ellegren H. 1997. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 264: 297-302.
47. Watt WB, Carter PA, Donohue K. 1986. Females' choice of 'good genotypes' as mates is promoted by an insect mating system. Science 233: 1187-1190.
48. White GC, Burnham KP. 1999. Program Mark. Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 (Suppl.): 120-136.
49. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-214.