Evolutionary pathways in shorebird breeding systems: Sexual conflict, parental care, and chick development

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 2222-2230

  Thomas, Gavin H ^a,b   Székely, Tamás ^a  

^a University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Developmental mode; Mating systems; Parental care; Phylogeny; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; PARENTAL CARE; SEABIRD; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; MALE; NESTING; NEWBORN; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, NEWBORN; BIRDS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; NESTING BEHAVIOR; PHYLOGENY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 27644436713     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1554/05-226.1     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alonzo, S. H., and R. R. Warner. 2000. Dynamic games and field experiments examining intra- and intersexual conflict: explaining counterintuitive mating behavior in a Mediterranean wrasse, Symphodus ocellatus. Behav. Ecol. 11:56-70.
2. Andersson, M. A. 2004. Social polyandry, parental investment, sexual selection, and evolution of reduced female gamete size. Evolution 58:24-34.
3. Balshine, S., B. Kempenaers, and T. Székely. 2002. Introduction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 357:237-240.
4. Balshine-Earn, S., and D. J. D. Earn. 1998. On the evolutionary pathway of parental care in mouth-brooding cichlid fishes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 265:2217-2222.
5. Barta, Z., A. I. Houston, J. M. McNamara, and T. Székely. 2002. Sexual conflict about parental care: the role of reserves. Am. Nat. 159:687-705.
6. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
7. Bennett, P. M., and I. P. F. Owens. 2002. Evolutionary ecology of birds: life histories, mating systems and extinction. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
8. Blomqvist, D., M. Andersson, C. Küpper, I. C. Cuthill, J. Kis, R. B. Lanctot, B. K. Sandercock, T. Székely, J. Wallander, and B. Kempenaers. 2002. Genetic similarity between mates and extraparentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613-615.
9. Borowik, O. A., and D. A. McLennan. 1999. Phylogenetic patterns of parental care in calidridine sandpipers. Auk 116:1107-1117.
10. Cézilly, F., F. Dubois, and M. Pagel. 2000. Is mate fidelity related to site fidelity? A comparative analysis in Ciconiiforms. Anim. Behav. 59:1143-1152.
11. Chapman, T., G. Arnqvist, J. Bangham, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:41-47.
12. Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1991. The evolution of parental care. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
13. Davies, N. B. 1991. Mating systems. Pp. 263-294 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific, London.
14. _. 1992. Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
15. Emlen, S. T., and L. W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-223.
16. Erckmann, W. J. 1983. The evolution of polyandry in shorebirds: an evaluation of hypotheses. Pp. 113-168 in S. K. Wasser, ed. Social behavior of female vertebrates. Academic Press, New York.
17. Ericson, P. G. P., I. Envall, M. Irestedt, and J. A. Norman. 2003. Inter-familial relationships of the shorebirds (Aves: Charadriiformes) based on nuclear DNA sequence data. BMC Evol. Biol. 3:16.
18. Figuerola, J. 1999. A comparative study on the evolution of reversed size dimorphism in monogamous waders. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67:1-18.
19. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 326:119-156.
20. 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.
21. Houston, A. I., and N. B. Davies. 1985. The evolution of cooperation and life history in the dunnock Prunella modularis. Pp. 471-487 in R. M. Sibly and R. H. Smith, eds. Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
22. Houston, A. I., T. Székely, and J. M. McNamara. 2005. Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:33-38.
23. Lack, D. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, London.
24. Larsen, T., T. A. Sordahl, and I. Byrkjedal. 1996. Factors related to aggressive nest protection behaviour: a comparative study of Holarctic waders. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58:409-439.
25. Lessells, C. M. 1999. Sexual conflict in animals. Pp. 75-99 in L. Keller, ed. Levels of selection in evolution. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
26. Ligon, J. D. 1999. The evolution of avian breeding systems. Oxford Ornithology Series. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
27. Liker, A., J. D. Reynolds, and T. Székely. 2001. The evolution of egg size in socially polyandrous shorebirds. Oikos 95:3-14.
28. McNamara, J. M., T. Székely, J. N. Webb, and A. I. Houston. 2000. A dynamic game-theoretic model of parental care. J. Theor. Biol. 205:605-623.
29. McNamara, J. M., A. I. Houston, T. Székely, and J. N. Webb. 2002. Do parents make independent decisions about desertion? Anim. Behav. 64:147-149.
30. Orians, G. H. 1969. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 103:589-603.
31. Owens, I. P. F., and P. Bennett. 1995. Ancient ecological diversification explains life-history variation among living birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 261:227-232.
32. _. 1997. Variation in mating systems among birds: ecological basis revealed by hierarchical comparative analysis of mate desertion. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 264:1103-1110.
33. Pagel, M. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 255:37-45.
34. _. 1997. Inferring evolutionary processes from phylogenies. Zool. Scripta. 26:331-348.
35. _. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877-884.
36. Parker, G. A., N. J. Royle, and I. R. Hartley. 2002. Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 357:295-307.
37. Paton, T. A., A. J. Baker, J. G. Groth, and G. F. Barrowclough. 2003. RAG-1 sequences resolve phylogenetic relationships within Charadriiform birds. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29:268-278.
38. Pérez-Barbería, F. J., I. J. Gordon, and M. Pagel. 2002. The origins of sexual dimorphism in body size in ungulates. Evolution 56:1276-1285.
39. Pilastro, A., L. Biddau, G. Marin, and T. Mingozzi. 2001. Female brood desertion increases with number of available mates in the rock sparrow. J. Avian Biol. 32:68-72.
40. Pitelka, F. A., R. T. Holmes, and S. F. MacLean Jr. 1974. Ecology and evolution of social organization in Arctic sandpipers. Am. Zool. 14:185-204.
41. Reynolds, J. D. 1996. Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:68-72.
42. Reynolds, J. D., and T. Székely. 1997. The evolution of parental care in shorebirds: life histories, ecology, and sexual selection. Behav. Ecol. 8:126-134.
43. Reynolds, J. D., N. B. Goodwin, and R. P. Freckleton. 2002. Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 357:269-281.
44. Sibley, C. G., and J. E. Ahlquist. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.
45. Székely, T., and J. D. Reynolds. 1995. Evolutionary transitions in parental care in shorebirds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 262:57-64.
46. Székely, T., J. N. Webb, A. I. Houston, and J. M. McNamara. 1996. An evolutionary approach to offspring desertion in birds. Curr. Ornithol. 13:271-330.
47. Székely, T., I. C. Cuthill, and J. Kis. 1999. Brood desertion in Kentish plover: sex differences in remating opportunities. Behav. Ecol. 10:185-190.
48. Székely, T., J. N. Webb, and I. C. Cuthill. 2000a. Mating patterns, sexual selection and parental care: an integrative approach. Pp. 159-185 in M. Apollonio, M. Festa-Bianchet, and D. Mainardi, eds. Vertebrate mating systems. World Scientific, Singapore.
49. Székely, T., J. D. Reynolds, and J. Figuerola. 2000b. Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls, and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution 54:1404-1413.
50. Székely, T., R. P. Freckleton, and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:12224-12227.
51. Temrin, H., and B. S. Tullberg. 1995. A phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of avian mating systems in relation to altricial and precocial young. Behav. Ecol. 6:296-307.
52. Thomas, G. H., M. A. Wills, and T. Székely. 2004a. Phylogeny of shorebirds, gulls, and alcids (Aves: Charadrii) from the cytochrome-b gene: parsimony, Bayesian inference, minimum evolution and quartet puzzling. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30:516-526.
53. _. 2004b. A supertree approach to shorebird phylogeny. BMC Evol. Biol. 4:28.
54. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136-177 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago.
55. van Tuinen, M., D. Waterhouse, and G. J. Dyke. 2004. Avian molecular systematics on the rebound: a fresh look at modern shorebird phylogenetic relationships. J. Avian Biol. 35:191-194.
56. Westneat, D. F., and R. C. Sargeant. 1996. Sex and parenting: the effects of sexual conflict and parentage on parental strategies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:87-91.
57. Whitfield, D. P., and P. S. Tomkovich. 1996. Mating system and timing of breeding in Holarctic waders. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 57:277-289.
58. Winkler, D. W., and G. S. Wilkinson. 1988. Parental effort in birds and mammals: theory and measurement. Pp. 185-214 in P. H. Harvey and L. Partridge, eds. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 5. Oxford Univ. Press, London.