When mothers make sons sexy: Maternal effects contribute to the increased sexual attractiveness of extra-pair offspring

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 279, Issue 1731, 2012, Pages 1233-1240

  Tschirren, Barbara ^a,b   Postma, Erik ^b   Rutstein, Alison N ^a   Griffith, Simon C ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Differential allocation; Extra pair copulations; Indirect genetic benefits; Maternal investment; Parental care; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

EGG SIZE; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; EXTRA-PAIR COPULATION; FERTILIZATION (REPRODUCTION); GENETIC STRUCTURE; HERITABILITY; MATE ATTRACTION; MATERNAL EFFECT; MATING BEHAVIOR; ORNAMENTATION; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; PASSERINE; PHENOTYPE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

TAENIOPYGIA GUTTATA;

EID: 84856809250     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1543     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Petrie, M. & Kempenaers, B. 1998 Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 52-58. (doi:10.1016/ S0169-5347(97)01232-9)
2. Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F. & Thuman, K. A. 2002 Extra-pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol. Ecol. 11, 2195-2212. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01613.x)
3. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 2000 Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75, 21-64. (doi:10.1017/S0006323199005423)
4. Møller, A. P. & Alatalo, R. V. 1999 Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 85-91. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0607)
5. Neff, B. D. & Pitcher, T. E. 2005 Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14, 19-38. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02395.x)
6. Griffith, S. C. & Immler, S. 2009 Female infidelity and genetic compatibility in birds: the role of the genetically loaded raffle in understanding the function of extrapair paternity. J. Avian Biol. 40, 97-101. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-048X.2009.04562.x)
7. Westneat, D. F. & Stewart, I. R. K. 2003 Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 365-396. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132439)
8. Akçay, E. & Roughgarden, J. 2007 Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of the genetic benefits. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9, 855-868.
9. Arnqvist, G. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2005 The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. Am. Nat. 165, S26-S37. (doi:10.1086/429350)
10. Forstmeier, W., Martin, K., Bolund, E., Schielzeth, H. & Kempenaers, B. 2011 Female extrapair mating behavior can evolve via indirect selection on males. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10 608-610 613. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1103195108)
11. Forsman, A. M., Vogel, L. A., Sakaluk, S. K., Johnson, B. G., Masters, B. S., Johnson, L. S. & Thompson, C. F. 2008 Female house wrens (Troglodytes aedon) increase the size, but not immunocompetence, of their offspring through extra-pair mating. Mol. Ecol. 17, 3697-3706. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03860.x)
12. Sheldon, B. C., Merilä, J., Qvarnström, A., Gustafsson, L. & 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. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0042)
13. Johnsen, A., Andersen, V., Sunding, C. & Lifjeld, J. T. 2000 Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406, 296-299. (doi:10.1038/35018556)
14. Garvin, J. C., Abroe, B., Pedersen, M. C., Dunn, P. O. & Whittingham, L. A. 2006 Immune response of nestling warblers varies with extra-pair paternity and temperature. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3833-3840. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03042.x)
15. Kempenaers, B., Verheyren, G. R. & Dhondt, A. A. 1997 Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav. Ecol. 8, 481-492. (doi:10.1093/beheco/8.5.481)
16. Schmoll, T., Dietrich, V., Winkel, W., Epplen, J. T., Schurr, F. & Lubjuhn, T. 2005 Paternal genetic effects on offspring fitness are context dependent within the extrapair mating system of a socially monogamous passerine. Evolution 59, 645-657.
17. Birkhead, T., Schwabl, H. & Burke, T. 2000 Testosterone and maternal effects-integrating mechanisms and function. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 86-87. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01803-0)
18. Whittingham, L. A., Dunn, P. O. & Clotfelter, E. D. 2003 Parental allocation of food to nestling tree swallows: the influence of nestling behaviour, sex and paternity. Anim. Behav. 65, 1203-1210. (doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2178)
19. Kempenaers, B. & Sheldon, B. C. 1996 Why do male birds not discriminate between their own and extra-pair offspring? Anim. Behav. 51, 1165-1173. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0118)
20. Westneat, D. F., Clark, A. B. & Rambo, K. C. 1995 Within brood patterns of paternity and paternal behavior in red-winged blackbirds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37, 349-356. (doi:10.1007/BF00174140)
21. Magrath, M. J. L., Vedder, O., van der Velde, M. & Komdeur, J. 2009 Maternal effects contribute to the superior performance of extra-pair offspring. Curr. Biol. 19, 792-797. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.068)
22. Ferree, E. D., Dickinson, J., Rendell, W., Stern, C. & Porter, S. 2010 Hatching order explains an extrapair chick advantage in western bluebirds. Behav. Ecol. 21, 802-807. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arq056)
23. Magrath, R. D. 1990 Hatching asynchrony in altricial birds. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 65, 587-622. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1990.tb01239.x)
24. Slagsvold, T., Amundsen, T. & Dale, S. 1995 Costs and benefits of hatching asynchrony in blue tits Parus caeruleus. J. Anim. Ecol. 64, 563-578. (doi:10.2307/5800)
25. Gebhardt-Henrich, S. G. & Richner, H. 1998 Causes of growth variation and its consequences for fitness. In Avian growth and development: evolution within the altricial-precocial spectrum (eds J. M. Stark & R. E. Ricklefs), pp. 324-339. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26. Tschirren, B., Rutstein, A. N., Postma, E., Mariette, M. & Griffith, S. C. 2009 Short- and long-term consequences of early developmental conditions: a case study on wild and domesticated zebra finches. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 387-395. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01656.x)
27. Rutstein, A. N., Brazill-Boast, J. & Griffith, S. C. 2007 Evaluating mate choice in the zebra finch. Anim. Behav. 74, 1277-1284. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.022)
28. Birkhead, T. R., Pellatt, E. J., Matthews, I. M., Roddis, N. J., Hunter, F. M., McPhie, F. & Castillo-Juarez, H. 2006 Genic capture and the genetic basis of sexually selected traits in the zebra finch. Evolution 60, 2389-2398.
29. Blount, J. D., Metcalfe, N. B., Birkhead, T. R. & Surai, P. F. 2003 Carotenoid modulation of immune function and sexual attractiveness in zebra finches. Science 300, 125-127. (doi:10.1126/science.1082142)
30. Burley, N. & Coopersmith, C. B. 1987 Bill color preferences of zebra finches. Ethology 76, 133-151. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00679.x)
31. Price, D. K. & Burley, N. T. 1994 Constraints on the evolution of attractive traits-selection in male and female zebra finches. Am. Nat. 144, 908-934. (doi:10.1086/285718)
32. Riebel, K. 2009 Song and female mate choice in zebra finches: a review. In Advances in the study of behavior (eds M. Naguib, K. Zuberbühler, N. S. Clayton & V. M. Janik), pp. 197-238. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
33. Hadfield, J. D. 2005 SPEC: processing spectral data. Ascot, UK: Imperial College at Silwood Park. See http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/iowens/spec/welcome.htm.
34. Hadfield, J. D. & Owens, I. P. F. 2006 Strong environmental determination of a carotenoid-based plumage trait is not mediated by carotenoid availability. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 1104-1114. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01095.x)
35. Endler, J. A. & Mielke, P. W. 2005 Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 86, 405-431. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00540.x)
36. Abramoff, M. D., Magelhaes, P. J. & Ram, S. J. 2004 Image processing with IMAGEJ. Biophotonics Int. 11, 36-42.
37. Hoyt, D. F. 1979 Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96, 73-77.
38. Forstmeier, W., Schielzeth, H., Schneider, M. & Kempenaers, B. 2007 Development of polymorphic microsatellite markers for the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 1026-1028. (doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01762)
39. Sefc, K. M., Payne, R. B. & Sorenson, M. D. 2001 Characterization of microsatellite loci in village indigobirds Vidua chalybeata and cross-species amplification in estrildid and ploceid finches. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1, 252-254. (doi:10.1046/j.1471-8278.2001.00095.x)
40. Richardson, D. S., Jury, F. L., Dawson, D. A., Salgueiro, P., Komdeur, J. & Burke, T. 2000 Fifty Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis) microsatellite loci polymorphic in Sylviidae species and their cross-species amplification in other passerine birds. Mol. Ecol. 9, 2226-2231. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2000.105338.x)
41. Kalinowski, S. T., Taper, M. L. & Marshall, T. C. 2007 Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16, 1099-1106. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x)
42. Vandeputte, M., Mauger, S. & Dupont-Nivet, M. 2006 An evaluation of allowing for mismatches as a way to manage genotyping errors in parentage assignment by exclusion. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 265-267. (doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01167.x)
43. Slate, J., Marshall, T. & Pemberton, J. 2000 A retrospective assessment of the accuracy of the paternity inference program CERVUS. Mol. Ecol. 9, 801-808. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00930.x)
44. Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. 1983 The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210-1226. (doi:10.2307/2408842)
45. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998 Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
46. Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F. & Burke, T. 1999 Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400, 358-360. (doi:10.1038/22536)
47. Tschirren, B. & Postma, E. 2010 Quantitative genetics research in Zebra Finches: where we are and where to go. Emu 110, 268-278. (doi:10.1071/MU09092)
48. Cunningham, E. J. A. & Russell, A. F. 2000 Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404, 74-77. (doi:10.1038/35003565)
49. Gil, D., Graves, J., Hazon, N. & Wells, A. 1999 Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science 286, 126-128. (doi:10.1126/science.286.5437.126)
50. Pryke, S. R. & Griffith, S. C. 2009 Genetic incompatibility drives sex allocation and maternal investment in a polymorphic finch. Science 323, 1605-1607. (doi:10.1126/science.1168928)
51. Sheldon, B. C. 2000 Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 397-402. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01953-4)
52. Burley, N. 1986 Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am. Nat. 127, 415-445. (doi:10.1086/284493)
53. Gilbert, L., Williamson, K. A. & Graves, J. A. 2012 Male attractiveness regulates daughter fecundity non-genetically via maternal investment. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 523-528. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0962)
54. Mousseau, T. A. & Fox, C. W. 1998 Maternal effects as adaptations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55. Meikle, D. B., Kruper, J. H. & Browning, C. R. 1995 Adult male house mice born to undernurished mothers are unattractive to estrous females. Anim. Behav. 50, 753-758. (doi:10.1016/0003-3472(95)80135-9)
56. Hunt, J. & Simmons, L. W. 2000 Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution 54, 936-941.
57. Strasser, R. & Schwabl, H. 2004 Yolk testosterone organizes behavior and male plumage coloration in house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56, 491-497. (doi:10.1007/s00265-004-0810-9)
58. Eising, C. M., Müller, W. & Groothuis, T. G. G. 2006 Avian mothers create different phenotypes by hormone deposition in their eggs. Biol. Lett. 2, 20-22. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0391)
59. Gerlach, N. M., McGlothlin, J. W., Parker, P. G. & Ketterson, E. D. 2011 Promiscuous mating produces offspring with higher lifetime fitness. Proc. R. Soc. B 278. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1547)
60. Reid, J. M., Arcese, P., Sardell, R. J. & Keller, L. F. 2011 Additive genetic variance, heritability, and inbreeding depression in male extra-pair reproductive success. Am. Nat. 177, 177-187. (doi:10.1086/657977)
61. Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L.W., Hunt, J. & Tomkins, J. L. 2003 Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: a quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am. Nat. 161, 852-859. (doi:10.1086/375173)
62. Both, C., Visser, M. E. & Verboven, N. 1999 Densitydependent recruitment rates in great tits: the importance of being heavier. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 465-469. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0660)
63. Krist, M., Nadvornik, P., Uvirova, L. & Bures, S. 2005 Paternity covaries with laying and hatching order in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59, 6-11. (doi:10.1007/s00265-005-0002-2)
64. Griffith, S. C., Pariser, E. C., Tschirren, B. & Astheimer, L. B. In press. Resource allocation across the laying sequence in the wild zebra finch. J. Avian Biol.
65. Griffith, S. C. & Buchanan, K. L. 2010 Maternal effects in the zebra finch: a model mother reviewed. Emu 110, 251-267. (doi:10.1071/MU10006)
66. Griffith, S. C. 2007 The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: neglected components of direct and indirect selection. Am. Nat. 169, 274-281. (doi:10. 1086/510601)
67. Qvarnström, A. & Price, T. D. 2001 Maternal effects, paternal effects and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 95-100. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)02063-2)