Maternal adjustment of parental effort in relation to mate compatibility affects offspring development

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 226-232

  Pryke, Sarah R ^a   Griffith, Simon C ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Differential allocation; Genetic incompatibility; Maternal investment; Parental care

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FITNESS; MATE CHOICE; PARENTAL CARE; PASSERINE; REPRODUCTIVE COST;

ERYTHRURA GOULDIAE;

EID: 76749126540     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp180     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
3. Bańbura J, Bańbura M, Kaliński A, Skwarska J, Stomczyński R, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P. 2007. Habitat and year-to-year variation in haemoglobin concentration in nestling blue tits Cyanistes caeru-leus. Compar Biochem Physiol Mol Integr Physiol. 148:572-577.
4. Birkhead TR, Møller AP. 1993. Sexual selection and the temporal separation of reproductive events: sperm storage data from reptiles, birds and mammals. Biol J Linn Soc. 50:295-311.
5. Bluhm CK, Gowaty PA. 2004. Reproductive compensation for offspring viability deficits by female mallards, Anas platyrhynchos. Anim Behav. 68:985-992.
6. Bolund E, Schielzeth H, Forstmeier W. 2009. Compensatory investment in zebra finches: females lay larger eggs when paired to sexually unattractive males. Proc R Soc Lond B. 276:707-715.
7. Bretman A, Rodŕiguez-Munoz R, Treganza T. 2006. Male dominance determines female egg laying rate in crickets. Biol Lett. 2:409-411.
8. Burford J, Friedrich T, Yasukawa K. 1998. Response to playback of nestling begging in the red-winged blackbird, Agelaius phoeniceus. Anim Behav. 56:555-561.
9. Burley N. 1988. The differential-allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am Nat. 132:611-628.
10. Clarke GM. 1998. Developmental stability and fitness: the evidence is not quite so clear. Am Nat. 152:762-766.
11. Cunningham E, Russell A. 2000. Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature. 404:74-76.
12. de Lope F, Møller AP. 1993. Female reproductive effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of their mates. Evolution. 47:1152-1160.
13. Gil D, Graves J, Hazon N, Wells A. 1999. Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science. 286:126-128.
14. Gilbert L, Williamson K, Hazon N, Graves JA. 2006. Maternal effects due to male attractiveness affect offspring development in the zebra finch. Proc R Soc Lond B. 273:1765-1771.
15. Gowaty PA. 2003. Power asymmetries between the sexes, mate preferences and components of fitness. In: Travis C, editor. Women, evolution and rape. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
16. Gowaty PA, Anderson WW, Bluhm CK, Drickamer LC, Kim Y-K, Moore AJ. 2007. The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:15023-15027.
17. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Burke T. 1999. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature. 400:358-360.
18. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG. 1998. A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol. 7:1071-1075.
19. Griggio M, Morosinotto C, Pilastro A. 2009. Nestlings' carotenoid feather ornament affects parental allocation strategy and reduces maternal survival. J Evol Biol. 22:2077-2085.
20. Harris WE, Uller T. 2009. Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B. 364:1039-1048.
21. Hegner RE, Wingfield JC. 1987. Effects of experimental manipulation of testosterone levels on parental investment and breeding success in male house sparrows. Auk. 104:462-469.
22. Hinde CA. 2006. Negotiation over offspring care?-a positive response to partner-provisioning rate in great tits. Behav Ecol. 17: 6-12.
23. Hunt KE, Hahn TP, Wingfield JC. 1999. Endocrine influences on parental care during a short breeding season: testosterone and male parental care in Lapland longspurs (Calcarius lapponicus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 45:360-369.
24. Johnstone RA, Hinde CA. 2006. Negotiation over offspring care-how should parents respond to each other's efforts? Behav Ecol. 17: 818-827.
25. Ketterson ED, Nolan V. 1992. Hormones and life histories: an integra-tive approach. Am Nat. 140:s33-s62.
26. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB. 1999. Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature. 397:667-672.
27. Kolm N. 2001. Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc R Soc Lond B. 268:2229-2234.
28. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Hunt J, Tomkins JL. 2003. Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: a quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am Nat. 161:852-859.
29. Limbourg T, Mateman AC, Andersson S, Lessells CM. 2004. Female blue tits adjust parental effort to manipulated male UV attractiveness. Proc R Soc Lond B. 271:1903-1908.
30. Lozano GA, Lemon RE. 1996. Male plumage, paternal care and reproductive success in yellow warblers, Dendroica petechia. Anim Behav. 51:265-272.
31. Magrath MJL, Elgar MA. 1997. Paternal care declines with increased opportunity for extra-pair matings in fairy martins. Proc R Soc Lond B. 264:1731-1736.
32. Markman S, Yom-Tuv Y, Wright J. 1995. Male parental care in the orange-tufted sunbird: behavioural adjustments in provisioning and nest guarding effort. Anim Behav. 50:655-669.
33. Mazuc J, Chastel O, Sorci G. 2003. No evidence for differential maternal allocation to offspring in the house sparrow (Passer domesti-cus). Behav Ecol. 14:340-346.
34. Møller AP, Alatalo RV. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B. 266:85-91.
35. Navara KJ, Hill GE, Mendonca MT. 2006. Yolk androgen deposition as a compensatory strategy. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:392-398.
36. Pilastro A, Griggio M, Matessi G. 2003. Male rock sparrows adjust their breeding strategy according to female ornamentation: parental or mating investment? Anim Behav. 66:265-271.
37. Pryke SR, Griffith SC. 2007. The relative role of male versus female mate choice in maintaining assortative pairing among discrete colour morphs. J Evol Biol. 20:1512-1521.
38. Pryke SR, Griffith SC. 2009a. Genetic incompatibility drives sex allocation and maternal investment in a polymorphic finch. Science. 323:1605-1607.
39. Pryke SR, Griffith SC. 2009b. Postzygotic genetic incompatibility between sympatric color morphs. Evolution. 63:793-798.
40. Pryke SR, Griffith SC. Forthcoming. 2009c. Socially mediated tradeoffs between aggression and parental effort in competing color morphs. Am Nat. 174:455-464.
41. Reyer HU, Frei G, Som C. 1999. Cryptic female choice: frogs reduce clutch size when amplexed by undesired males. Proc R Soc Lond B. 266:2101-2107.
42. Rohde PA, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT. 1999. Parental care and sexual selection in the bluethroat, Luscinia s. svecica: a field-experimental test of the differential allocation hypothesis. Ethology. 105:651-663.
43. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Parker GA. 2006. Consequences of biparental care for begging and growth in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav. 72:123-130.
44. Rutstein AN, Gilbert L, Slater PJB, Graves JA. 2004. Mate attractiveness and primary resource allocation in the zebra finch. Anim Behav. 68:1087-1094.
45. Rutstein AN, Gilbert L, Tomkins JL. 2005. Experience counts: lessons from studies of differential allocation. Behav Ecol. 16:957-960.
46. Saino N, Møller AP. 1995. Testosterone induced depression of male parental behavior in the barn swallow-female compensation and effects on seasonal fitness. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 36:151-157.
47. Sanz JJ. 2001. Experimentally reduced male attractiveness increases parental care in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol. 12:171-176.
48. Sanz JJ, Kranenberg S, Tinbergen J. 2000. Differential response by males and females to manipulation of partner contribution in the great tit (Parus major). J Anim Ecol. 69:74-89.
49. Schwagmeyer P, Mock DW, Parker GA. 2002. Biparental care in house sparrows: negotiation or sealed bid? Behav Ecol. 13:713-721.
50. Sheldon BC. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol. 15:397-402.
51. Stoehr AM, Hill GE. 2000. Testosterone and the allocation of reproductive effort in male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus). Behav Ecol Socio. 48:407-411.
52. Trivers RL, Willard DE. 1973. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science. 179:90-91.
53. Veen T, Borge T, Griffith SC, Sætre G-P, Bures S, Gustafsson L, Sheldon BC. 2001. Hybridization and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. Nature. 411:45-50.
54. Williamson KA, Surai PF, Graves JA. 2006. Yolk antioxidants and mate attractiveness in the zebra finch. Func Ecol. 20:354-359.
55. Witte K. 1995. The differential-allocation hypothesis: does the evidence support it? Evolution. 49:1289-1290.
56. Wright J, Cuthill I. 1989. Manipulation of sex differences in parental care. Behav Ecol Socio. 25:171-181.
57. Wright J, Dingemanse NJ. 1999. Parents and helpers compensate for experimental changes in the provisioning effort of others in the Arabian babbler. Anim Behav. 58:345-350.
58. Zann R. 1996. The Zebra Finch a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.