Food, vigilance, and sperm: The role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous bird

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 593-601

  Pizzari, Tommaso ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Condition dependence; Courtship feeding; Ejaculate size; Mate choice; Social dominance; Vigilance

Indexed keywords

FOOD; MATE CHOICE; POLYGAMY; SOCIAL STATUS; SPERM; VIGILANCE;

AVES; GALLIFORMES; GALLUS; GALLUS GALLUS;

EID: 0142031459     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arg048     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Bakst MR, Cecil HC (eds), 1997. Techniques for semen evaluation, semen storage, and fertility determination. Savoy, Illinois: Poultry Science Associates.
3. Birkhead TR, Buchanan KL, Devoogd TJ, Pellatt EJ, Szekely T, Catchpole CK, 1997. Song, sperm quality and testes asymmetry in the sedge warbler. Anim Behav 53:965-971.
4. Birkhead TR, Parker GA, 1997. Sperm competition and mating systems. In: Behavioural ecology: and evolutionary approach (Krebs JR, Davies NB, eds). Oxford: Blackwell; 329-334.
5. Birkhead TR, Pellatt EJ, Hunter FM, 1988. Extra-pair copulation and sperm competition in the zebra finch. Nature 334:60-62.
6. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T, 2002. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3:262-274.
7. Bradbury JW, Gibson RM, 1983. Leks and mate choice. In: Mate choice (Bateson P, ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 109-138.
8. Brooks R, 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67-70.
9. Brown JS, 1999. Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49-71.
10. Brown WD, 1997. Courtship feeding in tree crickets increases insemination and female reproductive life span. Anim Behav 54: 1369-1382.
11. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L, 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241-244.
12. Cheng KM, Burns JT, 1988. Dominance relationship and mating behavior of domestic cocks: a model to study mate-guarding and sperm competition in birds. Condor 90:697-704.
13. Choe JC, Crespi BJ, 1997. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE, 1979. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim Behav 27:211-225.
15. Collias NE, 1987. The vocal repertoire of the red junglefowl: a spectrographic classification and the code of communication. Condor 89:510-524.
16. Craig JV, Ortman LL, Guhl AM, 1965. Genetic selection for social dominance ability in chicks. Anim Behav 13:114-131.
17. Darwin C, 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
18. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A, 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406:186-188.
19. Dewsbury D, 1982 Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119: 601-610.
20. Eisner T, Smedley SR, Young DK, Eisner M, Roach B, Meinwald J, 1996. Chemical basis of courtship in a beetle (Neopyrochroa flabellata): cantharidin as "nuptial" gift. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:6499-6503.
21. Etches RJ, 1996. Reproduction in poultry. Wallingford: CAB International.
22. Evans CS, Evans L, 1999. Chickens food calls are functionally referential. Anim Behav 58:307-319.
23. Evans CS, Marler P, 1994. Food-calling and audience effects in male chickens (Gallus gallus): their relationships to food-availability, courtship and social facilitation. Anim Behav 47:1159-1170.
24. Gray EM, 1997. Female red-winged blackbirds accrue material benefits from copulating with extra-pair males. Anim Behav 53:605-623.
25. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Burke T, 1999. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400:358-360.
26. Guhl AM, 1962. The behaviour of chickens. In: The behaviour of domestic animals (Hafez ESE, ed). London: Baillere, Tindall & Cox; 491-530.
27. Gwynne DT, 1984. Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bush crickets. Nature 307:361-363.
28. Gwynne DT, 1988. Courtship feeding and the fitness of female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Evolution 42:545-555.
29. Gwynne DT, 1993. Food quality controls sexual selection in mormoncrickets by altering male mating investment. Ecology 74:1406-1413.
30. Hagelin JC, 2002. The kind of traits involved in male-male competition: a comparison of plumage, behavior, and body size in quail. Behav Ecol 13:32-41.
31. Harrison B, 1987. Den Svenska dvärghönan II. Sven Rasf Tidsfkrift 1:12-14.
32. Harrison B, 2001. Gammal svensk dvärghöna. Hanegället 1:3-6.
33. Holland B, 2002. Sexual selection fails to promote adaptation to a new environment. Evolution 56:721-730.
34. Holland B, Rice WR, 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083-5088.
35. Ishikawa H, 1930. The life duration of cock spermatozoa outside the body. Proc World Poultry Assoc 4:90-94.
36. Johnsen TS, Zuk M, Fessler EA, 2001. Social dominance, male behaviour and mating in mixed-sex flocks of red jungle fowl. Behaviour 138:1-18.
37. Johnson RA, 1963. Habitat preference and behaviour of breeding jungle fowl in central western Thailand. Wilson Bull 75:270-272.
38. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The evolution of mating preference and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
39. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL, 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
40. Kruijt JP, 1966. The development of ritualised displays in the junglefowl. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 251:479-484.
41. Lake PE, 1975. Gamete production and the fertile period with particular reference to domesticated birds. Symp Zool Soc Lond 35:225-244.
42. Lake PE, Wood-Gush DGM, 1956. Diurnal rhythms in semen yields and mating behaviour in the domestic cock. Nature 178:853.
43. Lessells CM, Boag PT, 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116-121.
44. Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R, 1986a. Vocal communication in the domestic chicken. I. Does a sender communicate information about the quality of a food referent to a receiver? Anim Behav 34:188-193.
45. Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R, 1986b. Vocal communication in the domestic chicken. II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver? Anim Behav 34:194-198.
46. Mateos C, Carranza J, 1999. Effects of male dominance and courtship display on female choice in the ring-necked pheasant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:235-244.
47. McBride G, Parer IP, Foenander F, 1969. The social organisation and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Anim Behav Monogr 2: 125-181.
48. Moore AJ, 1990. The inheritance of social status, mating behaviour and attractiveness to mates in males Nauphoeta cinerea. Anim Behav 39:388-397.
49. Moore AJ, Moore PJ, 1999. Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:711-716.
50. Nakatsuru K, Kramer DL, 1982. Is sperm cheap? Limited male fertility and female choice in the lemon tetra (Pisces, Characidae). Science 216:735-755.
51. Parker GA, 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Sperm competition and sexual selection (Birkhead TR, Møller AP, eds). London: Academic Press; 3-54.
52. Pizzari T, 2001. Indirect partner choice through manipulation of male behaviour by female fowl, Gallus g. domesticus. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:181-185.
53. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR, 2000. Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787-789.
54. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR, 2001. For whom does the hen cackle? The adaptive significance of post oviposition cackling. Anim Behav 61:601-607.
55. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR, 2002. Sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol Rev 77:183-209.
56. Pizzari T, Froman DP, Birkhead TR, 2002. Pre- and post-insemination episodes of sexual selection in the fowl. Heredity 88:112-116.
57. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E, 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol 13:498-501.
58. Reynolds JD, 1996. Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 68-73.
59. Reynolds JD, Gross MR, 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230-243.
60. Sadowski JA, Moore AJ, Brodie ED III, 1999. The evolution of empty nuptial gifts in a dance fly, Empis snoddyi (Diptera: Empididae): bigger isn't always better. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:161-166.
61. Sæther SA, Fiske P, Kålås JA, 1999. Pushy males and choosy females: courtship disruption and mate choice in the lekking great snipe. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1227-1234.
62. Schütz, KE, Jensen P, 2001. Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: a comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 107: 753-765.
63. Sheldon BC, 1994. Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:25-30.
64. Sheldon BC, 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 15:397-402.
65. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr, 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
66. Stokes AW, 1971. Parental and courtship feeding in red jungle fowl. Auk 88:21-29.
67. Stokes AW, Williams HW, 1971. Courtship feeding in gallinaceous birds. Auk 88:543-559.
68. Stutt A, Siva-Jothy MT, 2001. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lecticularius. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5683-5687.
69. Sullivan MS, 1991. Individual and social behaviour of red junglefowl. J World Pheasant Assoc 15-16:57-72.
70. Thornhill R, Alcock J, 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
71. Warner RR, Shapiro DY, Marcanato A, Petersen CW, 1995. Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:135-139.
72. Wedell N, 1993. Evolution of nuptial gifts (PhD dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
73. Wedell N, Arak A, 1989. The wartbiter spermatophore and its effect on female reproductive output (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Decticus verrucivorus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:117-125.
74. Wilkinson GS, Presgraves DC, Crymes L, 1998. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391:276-279.
75. Wood-Gush DGM, 1971. The behaviour of the domestic fowl. Hants: Nimrod Press.
76. Zuk M, Thornhill R, Ligon JD, Johnson K, Austad S, Ligon SH, Thornhill NW, Costin C, 1990. The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Am Nat 136:459-473.