Male ornament variation in a sexually dimorphic seabird with variable male mating success

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 759-770

  Wright, Stephanie G ^a,b   Dearborn, Donald C ^a  

^a BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fregata minor; Lek paradox; Ornaments; Sexual selection; SWS1 opsin; Ultraviolet

Indexed keywords

FREGATA MINOR;

EID: 70350156637     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alcock, J. 1993. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Attenborough, D. 1998. The Life of Birds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Bennett, A.T.D. and Thery, M. 2007. Avian color vision and coloration: multidisciplinary evolutionary biology. Am. Nat., 169: S1-S6.
5. Bowmaker, J.K., Heath, L.A., Wilkie, S.E. and Hunt, D.M. 1997. Visual pigments and oil droplets from six classes of photoreceptor in the retinas of birds. Vision Res., 37: 2183-2194.
6. Brown, J.L. 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol., 8: 60-65.
7. Carvalho, L.S., Cowing, J.A., Wilkie, S.E., Bowmaker, J.K. and Hunt, D.M. 2007. The molecular evolution of avian ultraviolet- and violet-sensitive visual pigments. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24: 1843-1852.
8. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
9. Dearborn, D.C. 2001. Body condition and retaliation in the parental effort decisions of incubating great frigatebirds (Fregata minor). Behav. Ecol., 12: 200-206.
10. Dearborn, D.C. and Anders, A.D. 2006. Demography and reproductive ecology of great frigatebirds. Atoll Res. Bull, 543: 159-171.
11. Dearborn, D.C. and Ryan, M.J. 2002. A test of the Darwin-Fisher theory for the evolution of male secondary sexual traits in monogamous birds. J. Evol. Biol., 15: 307-313.
12. Dearborn, D.C., Anders, A.D. and Parker, P.G. 2001. Sexual dimorphism, extrapair fertilizations, and operational sex ratio in great frigatebirds (Fregata minor). Behav. Ecol., 12: 746-752.
13. Dearborn, D.C., Anders, A.D. and Williams, JB. 2005. Courtship display by great frigatebirds, Fregata minor: an energetically costly handicap signal? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 58: 397-406.
14. Dunn, P.O., Whittingham, L.A. and Pitcher, T.E. 2001. Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution, 55: 161-175.
15. Forsman, A. and Hagman, M. 2006. Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution, 60: 2148-2157.
16. Gontard-Danek, M.C. and Møller, A.P. 1999. The strength of sexual selection: a meta-analysis of bird studies. Behav. Ecol, 10: 476-486.
17. Gorelick, R. and Bertram, S.M. 2003. Maintaining heritable variation via sex-limited temporally fluctuating selection: a phenotypic model accommodating non-Mendelian epigenetic effects. Theory Bioscl, 122: 321-338.
18. Hamilton, W.D. and Zuk, M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science, 218: 384-387.
19. Hastad, O., Ernstdotter, E. and Odeen, A. 2005. Ultraviolet vision and foraging in dip and plunge diving birds. Biol. Lett., 1: 306-309.
20. Hauber, M.E., Russo, S.A. and Sherman, PW. 2001. A password for species recognition in a brood parasitic bird. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268: 1041-1048.
21. Hedrick, A.V. and Dill, L.M. 1993. Mate choice by female crickets is influenced by predation risk. Anim. Behav., 46: 193-196.
22. Hunt, D.M., Cowing, J.A., Wilkie, S.E., Parry, J.W.L., Poopalasundaram, S. and Bowmaker, J.K. 2004. Divergent mechanisms for the tuning of shortwave sensitive visual pigments in vertebrates. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 3: 713-720.
23. Jia, F.Y., Greenfield, M.D. and Collins, R.D. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution, 54: 953-967.
24. Juola, F.A., McGraw, K. and Dearborn, D.C. 2008. Carotenoids and throat pouch coloration in the great frigatebird (Fregata minor). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B, 149: 370-377.
25. Keyser, A.J. and Siefferman, L.M. 2005. Viability selection against highly ornamented males. Evol. Ecol. Res., 7: 595-606.
26. Kirkpatrick, M. and Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350: 33-38.
27. Knight, J. 2002. Sexual stereotypes. Nature, 415: 254-256.
28. Kodric-Brown, A. and Brown, J.H. 1984. Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am. Nat., 124: 309-323.
29. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W. and Tomkins, J.L. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature, 410: 684-686.
30. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution, 34: 292-305.
31. Ligon, J.D. 1999. The Evolution of Avian Breeding Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Madsen, V., Balsby, T.J.S., Dabelsteen, T. and Osorno, J.L. 2004. Bimodal signaling of a sexually selected trait: gular pouch drumming in the Magnificent Frigatebird. Condor, 106: 156-160.
33. Madsen, V., Dabelsteen, T., Osorio, D. and Osorno, J.L. 2007a. Morphology and ornamentation in male magnificent frigatebirds: variation with age class and mating status. Am. Nat., 169: S93-S111.
34. Madsen, V., Valkiunas, G., Iezhova, T.A., Mercade, C., Sanchez, M. and Osorno, J.L. 2007b. Testosterone levels and gular pouch coloration in courting magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens): variation with age-class, visited status and blood parasite infection. Horm. Behav., 51: 156-163.
35. Metz, V.G. and Schreiber, E.A. 2002. Great Frigatebird (Fregata minor). In The Birds of North America, No. 681 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences/Washignton, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.
36. Miller, C.W. and Moore, A.J. 2007. A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 274: 1279-1286.
37. Møller, A.P. and Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B, 266: 85-91.
38. Møller, A.P. and Pomiankowski, A. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 32: 167-176.
39. Neff, B.D. 2000. Females aren't perfect: maintaining genetic variation and the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol., 15: 395.
40. Nelson, J.B. 1975. The breeding biology of frigatebirds: a comparative review. Living Bird, 14: 113-155.
41. Norris, K. 1993. Heritable variation in a plumage indicator of viability in male great tits Parus major. Nature, 362: 537-539.
42. Odeen, A. and Hastad, O. 2003. Complex distribution of avian color vision systems revealed by sequencing the SWS1 opsin from total DNA. Mol. Biol. Evol, 20: 855-861.
43. Osorno, J.-L. 1999. Offspring desertion in the magnificent frigatebird: are males facing a trade-off between current and future reproduction? J. Avian Biol, 30: 335-341.
44. Owens, J.P.F. and Hartley, I.R. 1998. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 265: 397-407.
45. Petrie, M. 1992. Peacocks with low mating success are more likely to suffer predation. Anim. Behav., 44: 585-586.
46. Petrie, M. 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature, 371: 598-599.
47. Petrie, M. and Roberts, G. 2007. Sexual selection and the evolution of evolvability. Heredity, 98: 198-205.
48. Petrie, M., Halliday, T. and Sanders, C. 1991. Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim. Behav., 41: 323-332.
49. Pigliucci, M. and Kaplan, J. 2000. The fall and rise of Dr. Pangloss: adaptations and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol. Evol., 15: 66-70.
50. Pomiankowski, A. and Møller, A.P. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 260: 21-29.
51. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution, 43: 223-225.
52. Schreiber, E.A. and Schreiber, R.W. 1988. Great frigatebird size dimorphism on two Central Pacific atolls. Condor, 90: 90-99.
53. Sheldon, B.C., Merila, J., Qvarnstrom, A., Gustafsson, L. and Ellegren, H. 1997. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B, 264: 297-302.
54. Taylor, P.D. and Williams, G.C. 1982. The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Pop. Biol., 22: 392-409.
55. Vorobyev, M., Osorio, D., Bennett, A.T.D., Marshall, N.J. and Cuthill, I.C. 1998. Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J. Comp. Physiol A, 183: 621-633.
56. Westneat, D.F. 2006. No evidence of current sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in a bird with high variance in mating success. Am. Nat., 167: E171-E189.