Why do females find ornaments attractive? The coercion-avoidance hypothesis

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 96, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 372-382

  Pradhan, Gauri R ^a   Van Schaik, Carel P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Behavioural freedom; Female choice; Intromittent organs; Sexual selection; Weapons

Indexed keywords

FITNESS; MAMMAL; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; TAXONOMY; WEAPON;

AVES; MAMMALIA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 58549083548     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01131.x     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Alcock J. 2001. Animal behavior. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer Associates, Inc.
2. Alexander RD. 1974. The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5 : 325 383.
3. Amadon D. 1959. The significance of sexual differences in size among birds. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103 : 531 536.
4. Amadon D. 1975. Why are female birds of prey larger than males? Journal of Raptor Research 9 : 1 11.
5. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
6. Anderson MJ. 2000. Penile morphology and classification of bush babies (Subfamily Galagoninae). International Journal of Primatology 21 : 815 836.
7. Andersson M, Iwasa Y. 1996. Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11 : 53 59.
8. Andersson M, Norberg R. 1981. Evolution of reversed sexual size dimorphism and role partitioning among predatory birds, with a size scaling of flight performance. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 15 : 105 130.
9. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
10. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 58 : 385 399.
11. Berry JF, Shine R. 1980. Sexual size dimorphism and sexual selection in turtles (Order Testudines). Oecologia 44 : 185 191.
12. Bluhm CK, Gowaty PA. 2004. Social constraints on female mate preferences in mallards, Anas platyrhynchos, decrease offspring viability and mother productivity. Animal Behaviour 68 : 977 983.
13. Bradbury JW. 1981. The evolution of leks. In : Alexander RD, Tinkle TW, eds. Natural selection and social behaviour. New York, NY : Carron Press, 138 169.
14. Briskie JV, Montgomerie R. 1997. Sexual selection and the intromittent organ of birds. Journal of Avian Biology 28 : 73 86.
15. Brown JL. 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behavioral Ecology 8 : 60 65.
16. Buchholz R. 1995. Female choice, parasite load and male ornamentation in wild turkeys. Animal Behaviour 50 : 929 943.
17. Byers JA, Waits L. 2006. Good genes sexual selection in nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 : 16343 16345.
18. Caizergues A, Lambrechts MM. 1999. Male 'macho' mammals exploiting females versus male 'Don Juan' birds exploited by females: the opposite-sex exploitation (OSEX) theory. Ecology Letters 2 : 204 206.
19. Carranza J. 1995. Female attraction by males versus sites in territorial rutting red. Animal Behaviour 50 : 445 453.
20. Carranza J, Valencia J. 1999. Red deer females collect on male clumps at mating areas. Behavioral Ecology 10 : 525 532.
21. Catry P, Phillips RA, Furness RW. 1999. Evolution of reversed sexual size dimorphism in skuas and jaegers. The Auk 116 : 158 168.
22. Charleton BD, Reby D, McComb K. 2007. Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biology Letters 3 : 382 385.
23. Clutton-Brock TH. 1982. The function of antlers. Behaviour 79 : 108 125.
24. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Quarterly Reviews in Biology 67 : 437 456.
25. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA. 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Animal Behaviour 49 : 1345 1365.
26. Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey PH, Rudder B. 1977. Sexual dimorphism, socionomic sex ratio and body weight in primates. Nature 269 : 58 60.
27. Clutton-Brock TH, Green D, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M, Albon SD. 1988. Passing the buck: resource defence, lek breeding and mate choice in fallow deer. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 23 : 281 296.
28. Clutton-Brock TH, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M, Robertson A. 1989. Mate choice on fallow deer leks. Nature 340 : 463 465.
29. Cordero C, Eberhard WG. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptation. sa critical review of some current research. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16 : 1 6.
30. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London : John Murray.
31. Davies SJJF. 2002. Ratites and Tinamous. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
32. Davison GWH. 1985. Avian spurs. Journal of Zoology London (A) 206 : 353 366.
33. Drickamer LC, Gowaty PA, Holmes CM. 2000. Free female mate choice in house mice affects reproductive success and offspring viability and performance. Animal Behaviour 59 : 371 378.
34. Eberhard WG. 2002. The function of female resistance behavior: intromission by male coercion vs. female cooperation in sepsid flies (Diptera: Sepsidae). Revista de Biologia Tropical 50 : 485 505.
35. Eberhard WG. 2005. Evolutionary conflicts of interest: are female sexual decisions different? American Naturalist 165 : S19 S25.
36. Eshel I, Volovik I, Sansone E. 2000. On Fisher-Zahavi's handicapped sexy son. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2 : 509 523.
37. Fitzsimmons N, Buskirk SW, Smith MH. 1995. Population history, genetic variability and horn growth in Bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 9 : 314 323.
38. Fox E. 2002. Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 52 : 93 101.
39. Geist V. 1966. Evolutionary significance of mountain sheep horns. Evolution 20 : 558 566.
40. Geist V. 1986. The paradox of the Great Irish Stags. Natural History 3 : 54 64.
41. Ghiselin MT. 1974. The economy of nature and the evolution of sex. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press.
42. Gowaty PA. 1997. Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in mating behavior. In : Gowaty PA, ed. Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. New York, NY : Chapman Hall, 351 384.
43. Gowaty PA. 2004. Sex roles, contests for the control of reproduction, and sexual selection. In : Kappeler P, van Schaik CP, eds. Sexual selection in primates: new and comparative perspectives. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 37 54.
44. Gowaty PA, Buschhaus N. 1998. Ultimate causation of aggressive and forced copulation in birds: female resistance, the CODE hypothesis, and social monogamy. American Zoologist 38 : 207 225.
45. Grafen A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144 : 517 546.
46. Grahn M, Göransson G, von Schantz T. 1993. Territory acquisition and mating success in pheasants, Phasianus colchicus: an experiment. Animal Behaviour 46 : 721 730.
47. Göransson G, von Schantz T, Froberg I, Helegee A, Wittzell H. 1990. Male characteristics, viability and harem size in the pheasant Phasianus colchius. Animal Behaviour 40 : 89 104.
48. Hakkarainen H, Huhta E, Lahti K, Lundvall P, Mappes T, Tolopen P, Wiehn J. 1996. A test of male mating and hunting success in the kestrel: the advantage of smallness? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 39 : 375 380.
49. Handford P, Mares MA. 1985. The mating systems of ratites and tinamous: an evolutionary perspective. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 25 : 77 104.
50. Höglund J, Montgomerie R, Widemo F. 1993. Costs and consequences of variation in the size of ruff leks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32 : 31 39.
51. Jennions MD, MØller AP, Petrie M. 2001. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Quarterly Review of Biology 76 : 3 36.
52. King AS. 1981. Phallus. In : King AS, McLelland J, eds. Form and function in birds, Vol. 2. London : Academic Press, 107 147.
53. Kodric-Brown A, Sibly RM, Brown JH. 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 : 8733 8738.
54. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 270 : 653 664.
55. Korpimaki E. 1986. Reversed size dimorphism in birds of prey, especially in Tengmalm's owl Aegolius funereus: a test of the 'starvation hypothesis Ornis Scandinavica 17 : 326 332.
56. Krüger O. 2005. The evolution of reversed sexual size dimorphism in hawks, falcons and owls: a comparative study. Evolutionary Ecology 19 : 467 486.
57. Low M. 2005. Female resistance and male force: context and patterns of copulation in the New Zealand stitchbird Notiomystis cinta. Jounal of Avian Biology 36 : 436 448.
58. McComb K, Clutton-Brock T. 1994. Is mate choice or aggression responsible for skewed distributions of females on leks? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 255 : 13 19.
59. McKinney F, Evarts S. 1997. Sexual coercion in waterfowl and other birds. Ornithological Monographs 49 : 163 195.
60. Mateos C. 1998. Sexual selection in the ring-necked pheasant: a review. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 10 : 313 332.
61. Mateos C, Carranza J. 1995. Female choice on morphological features of male ring-necked pheasant. Animal Behaviour 49 : 737 748.
62. Mateos C, Carranza J. 1996. On the intersexual sexual slection for spurs in the ring-necked pheasant. Behavioral Ecology 7 : 362 369.
63. Matyjasiak P, Jablonski PG, Ollejniczak I, Boniecki PI, Lee SD. 1999. Foraging cost of a long tail ornament : an experiment with sand martin females. Ethology 105 : 521 530.
64. Mesnick SL, LeBoeuf BJ. 1991. Sexual behaviour of male northern elephant seals: 2. Female response to potentially injurious encounters. Behaviour 117 : 262 280.
65. Møller AP, Hedenstrom A. 1999. Comparative evidence for costs of secondary sexual characters : adaptive vane emargination of ornamented feathers in birds. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12 : 296 305.
66. Møller AP, Nielsen JT. 1997. Differential predation cost of a secondary sexual character: sparrowhawk predation on barn swallows. Animal Behaviour 54 : 1545 1551.
67. Møller AP, Thornhill R. 1998. Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 55 : 1507 1515.
68. Nefdt RJC. 1995. Disruptions of matings, harassment and lek-breeding in Kafue lechwe antelope. Animal Behaviour 49 : 419 429.
69. Ophir AG, Persaud KN, Galef BG. 2005. Avoidance of relatively aggressive male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) by sexually experienced conspecific females. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119 : 3 7.
70. Pandit SA, van Schaik CP. 2003. A model for leveling coalitions among male primates: toward a theory of egalitarianism. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55 : 161 168.
71. Paul A. 2002. Sexual selection and mate choice. International Journal of Primatology 23 : 87 7 904.
72. Persaud KN, Galef BG. 2005a. Eggs of female Japanese quail are more likely to be fertilized by a male that she prefers. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119 : 251 256.
73. Persaud KN, Galef BG. 2005b. Female Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) mated with males that harass them are unlikely to lay fertilized eggs. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119 : 440 446.
74. Plavcan JM, van Schaik CP. 1997. Intrasexual competition and body weight dimorphism in anthropoid primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 103 : 37 68.
75. Promislow DEL, Montgomerie R, Martin T. 1992. Mortality costs of sexual dimorphism in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 250 : 143 150.
76. Reale D, Bousses P, Chapuis JL. 1996. Female-biased mortality induced by male sexual harassment in a feral sheep population. Canadian Journal of Zoology - Revue Canadienne de Zoologie 74 : 1812 1818.
77. Rubenstein DI. 1986. Ecology and sociality in horses and zebras. In : Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW, eds. Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 282 302.
78. Safina C. 1984. Selection for reduced male size in raptorial birds: the possible roles of female choice and mate guarding. Oikos 43 : 159 164.
79. Scribner KT, Smith MH. 1990. Genetic variability and antler development. In : Bubenik GA, Bubenik AB, eds. Horns, proghorns and antlers. New York, NY : Springer-Verlag, 460 473.
80. Scribner KT, Smith MH, Jones PE. 1989. Environmental and genetic components of antler growth in white-tailed deer. Journal of Mammalogy 70 : 284 291.
81. Shine R. 1978. Sexual size dimorphism and male combat in snakes. Oecologia 33 : 269 277.
82. Shine R, Mason RT. 2005. Does large body size in males evolve to facilitate forcible insemination? A study on Garter snakes. Evolution 59 : 2426 2432.
83. Smith SM. 1982. Raptor 'reverse' dimorphism revisited: a new hypothesis. Oikos 39 : 118 122.
84. Smuts BB, Smuts RW. 1993. Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals; evidence and theoretical implications. Advances in the Study of Behavior 22 : 1 63.
85. Van Schaik CP, Hodges JK, Nunn CL. 2000. Paternity confusion and the ovarian cycles of female primates. In : van Schaik CP, Janson CH, eds. Infanticide by males and its implications. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 361 387.
86. Van Schaik CP, Pandit SA, Vogel ER. 2005. Toward a general model for male-male coalitions in primate groups. In : Kappeler P, van Schaik CP, eds. Cooperation in primates and humans. Berlin : Springer Verlag, 151 171.
87. Von Schantz T, Göransson G, Andersson G, Froberg I, Grahn M, Helgee A, Wittzell H. 1989. Female choice selects for a viability-based male trait in pheasants. Nature 337 : 166 169.
88. Von Schantz T, Grahn M, Göransson G. 1994. Intersexual selection and reproductive success in the pheasant Phasianus colchicus. American Naturalist 144 : 510 527.
89. Walther BA, Clayton DH. 2005. Elaborate ornaments are costly to maintain: evidence for high maintenance handicaps. Behavioral Ecology 16 : 89 95.
90. Westneat D. 1987. Extra-pair copulations in a predominantly monogamous bird: observations of behaviour. Animal Behaviour 35 : 865 876.