The design of complex sexual traits in male barn swallows: Associations between signal attributes

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 2052-2066

  Garamszegi, L Z ^a   Hegyi, G ^b   Heylen, D ^a   Ninni, P ^c   De Lope, F ^d   Eens, M ^a   MOller A P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^c SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EXTREMADURA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Age dependence; Bird song; Condition dependence; Mate choice; Repeatability; Tail length; Viability

Indexed keywords

BIRD; MALE BEHAVIOR; SEASONALITY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL; SURVIVAL;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; FEATHER; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SURVIVAL; SWALLOW (BIRD); VOCALIZATION;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; FEATHERS; MALE; SELECTION (GENETICS); SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SWALLOWS; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

AVES; HIRUNDO; HIRUNDO RUSTICA;

EID: 33745616869     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01135.x     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Alatalo, R.V., Gustafsson, L. & Lundberg, A. 1986a. Do females prefer older males in polygynous bird species? Am. Nat. 127: 241-245.
2. Alatalo, R.V., Lundberg, A. & Glynn, C. 1986b. Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature 323: 152-153.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Berglund, A., Bisazza, A. & Pilastro, A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58: 385-399.
5. Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. 1998. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. Academic Press, London.
6. Boake, C.R.B. 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol. Ecol. 3: 173-182.
7. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406: 67-70.
8. Buchanan, K.L. & Catchpole, C.K. 1997. Female choice in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: multiple cues from song and territory quality. Proc. R. Soc. of Lond. B 264: 521-526.
9. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 78: 575-595.
10. Cooper, H. & Hedges, V. 1994. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
11. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. of Lond. B 271: 771-783.
12. Cramp, S. 1988. The Birds of the Western Palearctic (S. Cramp, ed). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Dohm, M.R. 2002. Repeatability estimates do not always set an upper limit to heritability. Funct. Ecol. 16: 273-280.
14. Endler, J.A., Basolo, A., Glowacki, S. & Zerr, J. 2001. Variation in response to artificial selection for light sensitivity in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Am. Nat. 158: 36-48.
15. Eshel, I., Volovik, I. & Sansone, E. 2000. On Fisher-Zahavi's handicapped sexy son. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2: 509-523.
16. Falconer, D.S. & Mackay, T.F. 1996. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman, Harlow, London.
17. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125: 1-15.
18. Galeotti, P., Saino, N., Sacchi, R. & Møller, A.P. 1997. Song correlates with social context, testosterone and body condition in male barn swallows. Anim. Behav. 53: 687-700.
19. Galeotti, P., Saino, N., Perani, E., Sacchi, R. & Møller, A. P. 2001. Age-related song variation in male barn swallows. Ital. J. Zool. 68: 305-310.
20. Garamszegi, L.Z. 2006. Comparing effect sizes across variables: generalization without the need for Bonferroni correction. Behav. Ecol. (in press).
21. Garamszegi, L.Z., Møller, A.P., Török, J., Michl, G., Péczely, P. & Richard, M. 2004. Immune challenge mediates vocal communication in a passerine bird: an experiment. Behav. Ecol. 15: 148-157.
22. Garamszegi, L.Z., Heylen, D., Møller, A.P., Eens, M. & de Lope, F. 2005. Age-dependent health status and song characteristics in the barn swallow. Behav. Ecol. 16: 580-591.
23. 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.
24. Gil, D. 1998. Song Characteristics and Sexual Selection in the Willow Warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus). University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland.
25. Gil, D. & Gahr, M. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 133-141.
26. Gil, D. & Slater, P.J.B. 2000a. Multiple song repertoire characteristics in the willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) correlations with female choice and offspring viability. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47: 319-326.
27. Gil, D. & Slater, P.J.B. 2000b. Song organisation and singing patterns of the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Behaviour 137: 759-782.
28. Gil, D., Cobb, J.L.S. & Slater, P.J.B. 2001. Song charactersitics are age dependent in the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Anim. Behav. 62: 689-694.
29. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 517-546.
30. Griffith, S.C. & Sheldon, B.C. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the expression of sexually selected traits: neglected components of variation. Anim. Behav. 61: 987-993.
31. Hansen, T.F. & Price, D.K. 1995. Good genes and old age: Do old mates provide superior genes? J. Evol. Biol. 8: 759-778.
32. Hedges, L.V. & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press, London.
33. Hegyi, G., Török, J. & Tóth, L. 2002. Qualitative population divergence in proximate determination of a sexually selected trait in the collared flycatcher. J. Evol. Biol. 15: 710-719.
34. Hunt, J., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D., Smith, M.J., Bentsen, C.L. & Bussiere, L.F. 2004. High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432: 1024-1027.
35. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48: 853-867.
36. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200: 97-109.
37. Jennions, M.D., Møller, A.P. & Petrie, M. 2001. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q. Rev. Biol. 76: 3-36.
38. Johnstone, R.A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70: 1-65.
39. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
40. Kokko, H. 1997. Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41: 90-107.
41. Kokko, H. 1998. Good genes, old age and life-history trade-offs. Evol. Ecol. 12: 739-750.
42. Kokko, H. 2001. Fisherian and; 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4: 322-326.
43. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 653-664.
44. Lambrechts, M.M. & Dhondt, A.A. 1988. The anti-exhaustion hypothesis: a new hypothesis to explain song performance and song switching in the Great Tit. Anim. Behav. 36: 327-334.
45. Lessells, C.M. & Boag, P.T. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104: 116-121.
46. Møller, A.P. 1988. Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in the monogamous swallow. Nature 332: 640-642.
47. Møller, A.P. 1991. Sexual selection in the monogamous barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). I. Determinants of tail ornament size. Evolution 45: 1823-1836.
48. Møller, A.P. 1994a. Repeatability of female choice in a monogamous swallow. Anim. Behav. 47: 643-648.
49. Møller, A.P. 1994b. Sexual Selection and the Barn Swallow. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
50. Møller, A.P. & Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 266: 85-91.
51. Møller, A.P. & Pomiankowski, A. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 167-176.
52. Møller, A.P. & Szép, T. 2002. Survival rate of adult barn swallows Hirundo rustica in relation to sexual selection and reproduction. Ecology 83: 2220-2228.
53. Møller, A.P. & Tegelström, H. 1997. Extra-pair paternity and tail ornamentation in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41: 353-360.
54. 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. Am. Nat. 151: 236-242.
55. Manning, J.T. 1985. Choosy females and correlates of male age. J. Theor. Biol. 116: 349-354.
56. Marchetti, K. & Price, T. 1989. Differences in the foraging of juvenile and adult birds: the importance of developmental constraints. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 64: 51-70.
57. Martins, E.P. 1991. Individual and sex differences in the use of the push-up display by the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Anim. Behav. 41: 403-416.
58. Martins, E.P., Labra, A., Halloy, M. & Thompson, J.T. 2004. Largescale patterns of signal evolution: an interspecific study of Liolaemus lizard headbob displays. Anim. Behav. 68: 453-463.
59. Nakagawa, S. 2004. A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav. Ecol. 15: 1044-1045.
60. Omland, K.E. & Lanyon, S.M. 2000. Reconstructing plumage evolution in orioles (Icterus): Repeated convergence and reversal in patterns. Evolution 54: 2119-2133.
61. Parker, T.H. & Ligon, J.D. 2003. Female mating preferences in red junglefowl: a meta-analysis. Ethol. Ecol, Evol. 15: 63-72.
62. Perrier, C., de Lope, F., Møller, A.P. & Ninni, P. 2002. Structural coloration and sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. Behav. Ecol. 13: 728-736.
63. Pitcher, T.E., Dunn, P.O. & Whittingham, L.A. 2005. Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in birds. J. Evol. Biol. 18: 557-567.
64. Podani, J. 2000. Introduction to the Exploration of Multivariate Biological Data. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
65. Podos, J. 2001. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin's finches. Nature 409: 185-188.
66. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does not work sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. of Lond. B 231: 123-145.
67. Proulx, S.R., Day, T. & Rowe, L. 2002. Older males signal more reliably. Proc. R. Soc. of Lond. B 269: 2291-2299.
68. Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC CAIC): An Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Compu.r Appl. Biosci. 11: 247-251.
69. Qvarnström, A. & Forsgren, E. 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 498-501.
70. Rivero, A., Alatalo, R.V., Kotiahof, J.S., Mappes, J. & Parrif, S. 2000. Acoustic signalling in a wolf spider: can signal characteristics predict male quality? Anim. Behav. 60: 187-194.
71. Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
72. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. of Lond. B 263: 1415-1421.
73. Saino, N., Bolzern, A. M. & Møller, A.P. 1997a. Immunocompetence, ornamentation, and viability of male barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 549-552.
74. Saino, N., Calza, S. & Møller, A.P. 1997b. Immunocompetence of nestling barn swallows in relation to brood size and parental effort. J. Anim. Ecol. 66: 827-836.
75. Saino, N., Galeotti, P., Sacchi, R. & Møller, A.P. 1997c. Song and immunological conditions in male barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Behav. Ecol. 8: 364-371.
76. Saino, N., Primmer, C.R., Ellegren, H. & Møller, A.P. 1997d. An experimental study of paternity and tail ornamentation in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Evolution 51: 562-570.
77. Saino, N., Incagli, M., Martinelli, R. & Møller, A.P. 2002. Immune response of male barn swallows in relation to parental effort, corticosterone plasma levels, and sexual ornamentation. Behav. Ecol. 13: 169-174.
78. Saino, N., Ferrari, R.P., Romano, M., Rubolini, D. & Møller, A.P. 2003. Humoral immune response in relation to senescence, sex and sexual ornamentation in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). J. Evolution. Biol. 16: 1127-1134.
79. Sattman, D.A. & Cocroft, R.B. 2003. Phenotypic plasticity and repeatability in the mating signals of Enchenopa treehoppers, with implications for reduced gene flow among host-shifted populations. Ethology 109: 981-994.
80. Searcy, W.A. & Andersson, M. 1986. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annu. Rev. Ecol. S. 17: 507-533.
81. Searcy, W.A. & Yasukawa, K. 1996. Song and female choice. In: Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds (D. E. Kroodsma, & E. H. Miller, eds). pp. 454-473. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
82. Senar, J.C. & Pascual, J. 1997. Keel and tarsus length may provide a good predictor of avian body size. Ardea 85: 269-274.
83. Sibley, C.G. & Ahlquist, J.E. 1990. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: a Study in Molecular Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven.
84. Specht, R. 1999. Avisoft SasLab Pro: a PC-program for sonagraphic analysis. Users guide, Avisoft Bioacoustics, Berlin.
85. Török, J., Hegyi, G. & Garamszegi, L.Z. 2003. Depigmented wing patch size is a condition-dependent indicator of viability in male collared flycatchers. Behav. Ecol. 14: 382-388.
86. Trivers, R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selecrtion. In: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (B. Cambell, eds). pp. 139-179. Aldine, Chicago.
87. Wagner, W.E. & Sullivan, B.K. 1995. Sexual selection in the Gulf Coast toad, Bufo valliceps: female choice based on variable characters. Anim. Behav. 49: 305-319.
88. West-Eberhard, M.J. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
89. Yasukawa, K. 1981. Male quality and female choice of mate in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology 62: 922-929.