Paternal genetic effects on offspring fitness are context dependent within the extrapair mating system of a socially monogamous passerine

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 645-657

  Schmoll, Tim ^a   Dietrich, Verena ^b   Winkel, Wolfgang ^c   Epplen, Jörg T ^d   Schurr, Frank ^e   Lubjuhn, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF BRAUNSCHWEIG   (Germany)

^c INSTITUTE OF AVIAN RESEARCH VOGELWARTE HELGOLAND   (Germany)

^d RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^e HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Extrapair paternity; Genotype by environment interaction; Good genes; Half sibling comparison; Mating preference; Parus ater; Reproductive success

Indexed keywords

EXTRA-PAIR COPULATION; FITNESS; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; MATE CHOICE; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PASSERINE; PATERNAL EFFECT; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY;

AVES; GALLIFORMES; PARUS ATER; PASSERIFORMES;

EID: 15944404328     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01023.x     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Arctander, P. 1988. Comparative studies on avian DNA restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis: convenient procedures based on blood samples from live birds. J. Ornithol. 129:205-216.
2. Badyaev, A. V., and A. Qvarnström. 2002. Putting sexual traits into the context of an organism: a life-history perspective in studies of sexual selection. Auk 119:301-310.
3. Barber, I., S. A. Arnott, V. A. Braithwaite, J. Andrew, and F. A. Huntingford. 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:71-76.
4. Birkhead, T. R., and A. P. Møller. 1992. Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, New York.
5. _. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
6. Both, C., and M. E. Visser. 1998. Warmer springs lead to mistimed reproduction in great tits (Parus major). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:1867-1870.
7. Coltman, D. W., J. G. Pilkington, J. A. Smith, and J. M. Pemberton. 1999. Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evolution 53:1259-1267.
8. David, P., T. Bjorksten, K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186-188.
9. Dietrich, V. 2001. Zum Auftreten alternativer Fortpflanzungsstrategien in einer Lingener Population der Tannenmeise (Parus ater). Diploma thesis. Zoological Institute, TU Braunschweig, Germany.
10. Dietrich, V. C. J., T. Schmoll, W. Winkel, and T. Lubjuhn. 2003. Survival to first breeding is not sex-specific in the coal tit (Parus ater). J. Ornithol. 144:148-156.
11. Dietrich, V., T. Schmoll, W. Winkel, J. T. Epplen, and T. Lubjuhn. 2004. Pair identity: an important factor concerning variation in extra-pair paternity in the coal tit (Parus ater). Behaviour 141:817-835.
12. Dixon, A., D. Ross, S. L. C. O'Malley, and T. Burke. 1994. Paternal investment inversely related to degree of extra-pair paternity in the reed bunting. Nature 371:698-700.
13. Doty, G. V., and A. M. Welch. 2001. Advertisement call duration indicates good genes for offspring feeding rate in gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49:150-156.
14. Falconer, D. S., and T. F. C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, Essex, U.K.
15. Foerster, K., K. Delhey, A. Johnsen, J. T. Lifjeld, and B. Kempenaers. 2003. Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714-717.
16. Garcia-Berthou, E. 2001. On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J. Anim. Ecol. 70:708-711.
17. Gerken, T. 2001. Kopulationen außerhalb des Paarbundes bei der Kohlmeise (Parus major): proximate Einflüsse und ultimate Faktoren. Ph.D. thesis, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, University of Bonn, Germany.
18. Glutz von Blotzheim, U. N., and K. M. Bauer. 1993. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Aula, Wiesbaden.
19. Griffith, S. C., I. P. F. Owens, and K. A. Thuman. 2002. Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol. Ecol. 11:2195-2212.
20. Ihaka, R., and R. Gentleman. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comp. Graph. Stat. 5:299-314. Available via http://www.R-project. org.
21. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75:21-64.
22. Jia, F. Y., and M. D. Greenfield. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1057-1063.
23. Jia, F. Y., M. D. Greenfield, and R. D. Collins. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54:953-967.
24. Johnsen, A., V. Andersen, C. Sunding, and J. T. Lifjeld. 2000. Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296-299.
25. Keller, L. F., P. R. Grant, B. R. Grant, and K. Petren. 2002. Environmental conditions affect the magnitude of inbreeding depression in survival of Darwin's finches. Evolution 56:1229-1239.
26. Kempenaers, B., G. R. Verheyen, and A. A. Dhondt. 1997. Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav. Ecol. 8:481-492.
27. Kempenaers, B., R. B. Lanctot, and R. J. Robertson. 1998. Certainty of paternity and paternal investment in eastern bluebirds and tree swallows. Anim. Behav. 55:845-860.
28. King, J. R., and R. Griffiths. 1994. Sexual dimorphism of plumage and morphology in the coal tit Parus ater. Bird Study 41:7-14.
29. Kleven, O., and J. T. Lifjeld. 2004. Extra-pair paternity and offspring immunocompetence in the reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus). Anim. Behav. 68:283-289.
30. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1331-1340.
31. Krokene, C., K. Rigstad, M. Dale, and J. T. Lifjeld. 1998. The function of extrapair paternity in blue tits and great tits: Good genes or fertility insurance? Behav. Ecol. 9:649-656.
32. Lubjuhn, T., and K. P. Sauer. 1999. DNA fingerprinting and profiling in behavioural ecology. Pp. 39-52 in J. T. Epplen and T. Lubjuhn, eds. DNA profiling and DNA fingerprinting. Birkhäuser, Basel.
33. Lubjuhn, T., E. Curio, S. C. Muth, J. Brün, and J. T. Epplen. 1993. Influence of extra-pair paternity on parental care in great tits (Parus major). Pp. 379-385 in S. D. J. Pena, R. Chakraborty, J. T. Epplen and A. J. Jeffreys, eds. DNA fingerprinting: state of the science. Birkhäuser, Basel.
34. Lubjuhn, T., S. Strohbach, J. Brün, T. Gerken, and J. T. Epplen. 1999a. Extra-pair paternity in great tits (Parus major): a long term study. Behaviour 136:1157-1172.
35. Lubjuhn, T., T. Gerken, J. Brün, and J. T. Epplen. 1999b. High frequency of extra-pair paternity in the Coal Tit. J. Avian Biol. 30:229-233.
36. MacDougall-Shackleton, E. A., and R. J. Robertson. 1998. Confidence of paternity and paternal care by eastern bluebirds. Behav. Ecol. 9:201-205.
37. Møller, A. P., and R. V. Alatalo. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:85-91.
38. Møller, A. P., and R. Thornhill. 1998. Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 55:1507-1515.
39. Mousseau, T. A., and C. W. Fox. 1998. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:403-407.
40. Naef-Daenzer, B., F. Widmer, and M. Nuber. 2001. Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. J. Anim. Ecol. 70:730-738.
41. Petrie, M., and B. Kempenaers. 1998. Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:52-58.
42. Pinheiro, J. C., and D. M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. Springer, New York.
43. Qvarnström, A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:5-7.
44. Qvarnström, A., T. Pärt, and B. C. Sheldon. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344-347.
45. Schlaepfer, M. A., M. C. Runge, and P. W. Sherman. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:474-480.
46. Schmoll, T., V. Dietrich, W. Winkel, J. T. Epplen, and T. Lubjuhn. 2003. Long-term fitness consequences of female extra-pair matings in a socially monogamous passerine. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:259-264.
47. Schmoll, T., V. Dietrich, W. Winkel, and T. Lubjuhn. 2004. Blood-sampling does not affect fledging success and fledgling local recuitment in coal tits (Parus ater). J. Ornithol. 145:79-80.
48. Sheldon, B. C. 1999. Revealing quantitative genetic relationships in sexual selection using molecular markers. Pp. 1099-1114 in N. J. Adams and R. H. Slotow, eds. Proceedings of the 22nd international ornithological congress. Bird Life South Africa, Durban.
49. _. 2000a. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:397-402.
50. _. 2000b. Environmental dependence of genetic indicator mechanisms. Pp. 195-207 in Y. Espmark, T. Amundsen and G. Rosenqvist, eds. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir, Trondheim.
51. Sheldon, B. C., J. Merilä, A. Qvarnström, L. Gustafsson, and H. Ellegren. 1997. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:297-302.
52. Sheldon, B. C., H. Arponen, A. Laurila, P. A. Crochet, and J. Merilä. 2003. Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1288-1295.
53. Snijders, T. A. B., and R. J. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications, London.
54. Strohbach, S., E. Curio, A. Bathen, J. T. Epplen, and T. Lubjuhn. 1998. Extrapair paternity in the great tit (Parus major): a test of the "good genes" hypothesis. Behav. Ecol. 9:388-396.
55. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9:1013-1027.
56. Valera, F., H. Hoi, and A. Kristin. 2003. Male shrikes punish unfaithful females. Behav. Ecol. 14:403-408.
57. Venables, W. N., and B. D. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S-plus. Springer, New York.
58. Verboven, N., and M. E. Visser. 1998. Seasonal variation in local recruitment of great tits: the importance of being early. Oikos 81:511-524.
59. Wedekind, C., R. Müller, and H. Spicher. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-986.
60. Welch, A. M. 2003. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57:883-893.
61. Welch, A. M., R. D. Semlitsch, and H. C. Gerhardt. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930.
62. Westneat, D. F. 1990. Genetic parentage in the indigo bunting: a study using DNA fingerprinting. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27:67-76.
63. Westneat, D. F., and I. R. K. Stewart. 2003. Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:365-396.
64. Westneat, D. F., P. W. Sherman, and W. L. Morton. 1990. The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Pp. 331-369 in D. M. Power, ed. Curr. ornithol. Plenum Press, New York.
65. Whittingham, L. A., and P. O. Dunn. 2001. Survival of extrapair and within-pair young in tree swallows. Behav. Ecol. 12:496-500.
66. Winkel, W., and D. Winkel. 1997. Zum Einfluß der Populationsdichte auf die Zweitbrutrate von Tannenmeisen (Parus ater). Jahresber. Inst. Vogelforsch. 3:29.
67. Winkel, W., D. Winkel, and T. Huk. 2004. Langzeit-Erfassung brutbiologischer Parameter von Trauerschnäpper, Kohl- und Tannenmeise - Befunde aus einem Koniferenforst bei Lingen/Emsland. Jahresber. Inst. Vogelforsch. 6:15-16.