Male barn swallows use different signalling rules to produce ornamental tail feathers

Evolutionary Ecology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1217-1230

  Muñoz, Alberto ^a,c   Aparicio, José Miguel ^b   Bonal, Raúl ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN RECURSOS CINEGÉTICOS IREC CSIC UCLM JCCM   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA LA MANCHA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Female choice; Handicap principle; Hirundo rustica; Runaway; Secondary sexual traits; Viability indicators

Indexed keywords

FEATHER; HANDICAP PRINCIPLE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MALE BEHAVIOR; ORNAMENTATION; PASSERINE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SIGNALING; SURVIVAL; THEORETICAL STUDY; VIABILITY;

AVES; HIRUNDO; HIRUNDO RUSTICA;

EID: 80054030612     PISSN: 02697653     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10682-011-9512-8     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15: 149-155.
2. Andersson M (1982) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Nature 299: 818-820.
3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
4. Aparicio JM, Bonal R, Cordero PJ (2003) Evolution of the structure of tail feathers: implications for the theory of sexual selection. Evolution 57: 397-405.
5. Backwell PRY, Christy JH, Telford SR, Jennions MD, Passmore NI (2000) Dishonest signalling in a fiddler crab. Proc R Soc Lond B 267: 719-724.
6. Barbosa A, Merino S, Cuervo JJ, de Lope F, Møller AP (2003) Feather damage of long tails in Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica. Ardea 91: 85-90.
7. Barnard P (1990) Male tail length, sexual display intensity and female sexual response in a parasitic African finch. Anim Behav 39: 652-656.
8. Bro-Jørgensen J, Johnstone RA, Evans MR (2007) Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows. Curr Biol 17: 850-855.
9. Buchanan KL, Evans MR (2000) The effect of tail streamer length on aerodynamic performance in the barn swallow. Behav Ecol 11: 228-238.
10. Candolin U (2000) Male-male competition ensures honest signalling of male parental ability in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49: 57-61.
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 Lond B 271: 771-783.
12. Cotton S, Small J, Hashim R, Pomiankowski A (2010) Eyespan reflects reproductive quality in wild stalk-eyed flies. Evol Ecol 24: 83-95.
13. Cuervo JJ, Møller AP (2006) Experimental tail elongation in male Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica reduces provisioning of young, but only in second broods. Ibis 148: 449-458.
14. Dawkins MS, Guilford T (1991) The corruption of honest signalling. Anim Behav 41: 865-873.
15. Dufva R (1996) Blood parasites, health, reproductive success, and egg volume in female Great Tits Parus major. J Avian Biol 27: 83-87.
16. Fisher RA (1915) The evolution of sexual preferences. Eugenics Rev 7: 775-787.
17. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139: 603-622.
18. Griggio M, Devigili A, Hoy H, Pilastro A (2009) Female ornamentation and directional male mate preference in the rock sparrow. Behav Ecol 20: 1072-1078.
19. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds-a role for parasites. Science 218: 384-387.
20. Hoefler CD, Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2008) Evolutionarily costly courtship displays in a wolf spider: a test of viability indicator theory. Behav Ecol 19: 974-979.
21. Ihara Y, Aoki K, Feldman MW (2003) Runaway sexual selection with paternal transmission of the male trait and gene-culture determination of the female preference. J Theor Biol 63: 53-62.
22. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1994) The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48: 853-867.
23. Jensen H, Steinsland I, Ringsby TH, Sæther BE (2008) Evolutionary dynamics of a sexual ornament in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): the role of indirect selection within and between sexes. Evolution 62: 1275-1293.
24. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE (1988) Applied regression analysis and multivariable methods. Duxbury, Belmont, CA.
25. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002) The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 1331-1340.
26. Kotiaho JS (2001) Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol Rev 76: 365-376.
27. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78: 3721-3725.
28. Møller AP (1988) Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in monogamous swallow. Nature 332: 640-642.
29. Møller AP (1989) Viability costs of male tail ornaments in a swallow. Nature 339: 132-135.
30. Møller AP (1993) Sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica 3. Female tail ornaments. Evolution 47: 417-431.
31. Møller AP (1994a) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32. Møller AP (1994b) Male ornament size as a reliable cue to enhanced viability in the barn swallow. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 6929-6932.
33. Møller AP (1996) Development of fluctuating asymmetry in tail feathers of the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. J Evol Biol 9: 677-694.
34. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266: 85-91.
35. Møller AP, de Lope F (1994) Differential costs of a secondary sexual character: an experimental test of the handicap principle. Evolution 48: 1676-1683.
36. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32: 167-176.
37. Møller AP, de Lope F, Saino N (1995) Sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica 4. Aerodynamic adaptations. J Evol Biol 8: 671-687.
38. Møller AP, Barbosa A, Cuervo JJ, de Lope F, Merino S, Saino N (1998) Sexual selection and tail streamers in the barn swallow. Proc R Soc Lond B 265: 409-414.
39. Muñoz A, Aparicio JM, Bonal R (2008) Male barn swallows use different resource allocation rules to produce ornamental tail feathers. Behav Ecol 19: 404-409.
40. Murai M, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2009) The cost of reliable signalling: experimental evidence for predictable variation among males in a cost-benefit trade-off between sexually selected traits. Evolution 63: 2363-2371.
41. Murphy TG (2007) Racketed tail of the male and female turquoise-browed motmot: male but not female tail length correlates with pairing success, performance, and reproductive success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61: 911-918.
42. Palokangas P, Alatalo RV, Korpimäki E (1992) Female choice in the kestrel under different availability of mating options. Anim Behav 43: 659-665.
43. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260: 21-29.
44. Prum RO (1999) Development and evolutionary origin of feathers. J Exp Zool 285: 291-306.
45. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2005) Experimental evidence for female choice and energetic costs of male tail elongation in red-collared widowbirds. Biol J Linn Soc 86: 35-43.
46. Radwan J (2002) Good genes go fisherian. Trends Ecol Evol 17: 539.
47. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 1415-1421.
48. Rowe LV, Buchanan KL, Evans MR (2001) The function and evolution of the tail streamer in hirundines. Behav Ecol 12: 157-163.
49. Saino N, Møller AP (1996) Sexual ornamentation and inmunocompetence in the barn swallow. Behav Ecol 7: 227-232.
50. Saino N, Bolzern AM, Møller AP (1997) Inmunocompetence, ornamentation and viability of male barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 549-552.
51. Saino N, Calza S, Ninni P, Møller AP (1999) Barn swallows trade survival against offspring condition and inmunocompetence. J Anim Ecol 68: 999-1009.
52. Simmons LV, Emlen DJ (2008) No fecundity cost o female secondary sexual trait expression in the horned beetle Onthophagus sagittarius. J Evol Biol 21: 1227-1235.
53. Smith HG, Montgomerie R (1991) Sexual selection and the tail ornaments of North American barn swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28: 195-201.
54. Tubaro PL, Mahler B, Lijtmaer DA (2005) Patterns of rectrix rachis modification in pintails and the evolution of sexually selected traits. Biol J Linn Soc 86: 477-485.
55. Veiga JP (1995) Honest signalling and the survival cost of badges in the house sparrow. Evolution 49: 570-572.
56. Vincent J (1990) Structural biomaterials. Princeton University Press, Princeton (NJ).
57. Winquist T, Lemon RE (1994) Sexual selection and exaggerated male tail length in birds. Am Nat 143: 95-116.
58. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection-a selection for handicap. J Theor Biol 53: 205-214.