Signaling efficacy drives the evolution of larger sexual ornaments by sexual selection

Evolution

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 216-229

  Tazzyman, Samuel J ^a,b   Iwasa, Yoh ^c   Pomiankowski, Andrew ^b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Fisher's runaway; Mate choice; Mate preference; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual ornament; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BIRD; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MORPHOLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; TAIL FEATHER;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FISHER'S RUNAWAY; GENETIC SELECTION; MATE CHOICE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SEXUAL ORNAMENT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

FISHER'S RUNAWAY; MATE CHOICE; MATE PREFERENCE; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL ORNAMENT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 84890873432     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12255     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Bakker, T. C. M. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255-257.
3. Balmford, A., M. J. Lewis, M. D. Brooke, A. L. R. Thomas, and C. N. Johnson 2000. Experimental analyses of sexual and natural selection on short tails in a polygynous warbler. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 267:1121-1128.
4. Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127:229-255.
5. Bisazza, A., and A. Pilastro 2000. Variation of female preference for male coloration in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Behav. Genet. 30:207-212.
6. Borgia, G., and D. C. Presgraves 1998. Coevolution of elaborated male display traits in the spotted bowerbird: an experimental test of the threat reduction hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 56:1121-1128.
7. Brooks, R., and V. Couldridge 1999. Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154:37-45.
8. Buchholz, R. 1995. Female choice, parasite load and male ornamentation in wild turkeys. Anim. Behav. 50:929-943.
9. Calkins, J. D., and N. T. Burley 2003. Mate choice for multiple ornaments in the California quail, Callipepla californica. Anim. Behav. 65:69-81.
10. Canal, D., J. Potti, and J. A. Davila 2011. Male phenotype predicts extra-pair paternity in pied flycatchers. Behaviour 148:691-712.
11. Candolin, U. 2004. Opposing selection on a sexually dimorphic trait through female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Evolution 58:1861-1864.
12. Candolin, U.. 2005. Why do multiple traits determine mating success? Differential use in female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 272:47-52.
13. Chandler, C. H., C. Ofria, and I. Dworkin 2013. Runaway sexual selection leads to good genes. Evolution 67:110-119.
14. Chappell, M. A., M. Zuk, T. S. Johnsen, and T. H. Kwan 1997. Mate choice and aerobic capacity in red junglefowl. Behaviour 134:511-529.
15. Chiver, I., B. J. M. Stutchbury, and E. S. Morton 2008. Do male plumage and song characteristics influence female off-territory forays and paternity in the hooded warbler? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:1981-1990.
16. Cornwallis, C. K., and T. R. Birkhead 2007. Experimental evidence that female ornamentation increases the acquisition of sperm and signals fecundity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 274:583-590.
17. Cotton, S., D. W. Rogers, J. Small, A. Pomiankowski, and K. Fowler 2006. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 273:1287-1292.
18. Cronin, H. 1991. The ant and the peacock: altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. Press Syndicate of the Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge, NY .
19. Cummings, M. E. 2007. Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surfperch. Evolution 61:530-545.
20. Cummings, M. E., G. G. Rosenthal, and M. J. Ryan 2003. A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 270:897-904.
21. Daunt, F., P. Monaghan, S. Wanless, and M. P. Harris 2003. Sexual ornament size and breeding performance in female and male European Shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Ibis 145:54-60.
22. Dawkins, R. 1986. The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. WW Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
23. Delope, F., and A. P. Moller 1993. Female reproductive effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of their mates. Evolution 47:1152-1160.
24. Droney, D. C. 1996. Environmental influences on male courtship and implications for female choice in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 51:821-830.
25. Droney, D. C., and M. B. Hock 1998. Male sexual signals and female choice in Drosophila grimshawi (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J. Insect Behav. 11:59-71.
26. Endler, J. A. 1993. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 340:215-225.
27. Endler, J. A., and A. E. Houde 1995. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49:456-468.
28. Endler, J. A., D. A. Westcott, J. R. Madden, and T. Robson 2005. Animal visual systems and the evolution of color patterns: sensory processing illuminates signal evolution. Evolution 59:1795-1818.
29. Endler, J. A., L. C. Endler, and N. R. Doerr 2010. Great bowerbirds create theaters with forced perspective when seen by their audience. Curr. Biol. 20:1679-1684.
30. Fawcett, T. W., B. Kuijper, I. Pen, and F. J. Weissing 2007. Should attractive males have more sons? Behav. Ecol. 18:71-80.
31. Fawcett, T. W., B. Kuijper, F. J. Weissing, and I. Pen 2011. Sex-ratio control erodes sexual selection, revealing evolutionary feedback from adaptive plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:15925-15930.
32. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
33. Forsman, A., and M. Hagman 2006. Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution 60:2148-2157.
34. Galvan, I., and J. Moreno 2009. Variation in effects of male plumage ornaments: the case of Iberian Pied Flycatchers. Ibis 151:541-546.
35. Goddard, K., and A. Mathis 1997. Do opercular flaps of male longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) serve as sexual ornaments during female mate choice? Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 9:223-231.
36. Gong, A., and R. M. Gibson 1996. Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 52:1007-1015.
37. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144(4):517-546.
38. Griggio, M., H. Hoi, and A. Pilastro 2010. Plumage maintenance affects ultraviolet colour and female preference in the budgerigar. Behav. Process. 84:739-744.
39. Hagelin, J. C. 2003. A field study of ornaments, body size, and mating behavior of the Gambel's Quail. Wilson Bull. 115:246-257.
40. Hagelin, J. C., and J. D. Ligon 2001. Female quail prefer testosterone-mediated traits, rather than the ornate plumage of males. Anim. Behav. 61:465-476.
41. Hampton, K. J., K. A. Hughes, and A. E. Houde 2009. The allure of the distinctive: reduced sexual responsiveness of female guppies to 'redundant' male colour patterns. Ethology 115:475-481.
42. Hebets, E. A., and G. W. Uetz 2000. Leg ornamentation and the efficacy of courtship display in four species of wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47:280-286.
43. Hebets, E. A., J. A. Stafstrom, R. L. Rodriguez, and D. J. Wilgers 2011. Enigmatic ornamentation eases male reliance on courtship performance for mating success. Anim. Behav. 81:963-972.
44. Heindl, M., and H. Winkler 2003. Female canaries (Serinus canaria) associate more with males that contrast strongly against the background. Ethology 109:259-271.
45. Hingle, A., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 61:589-595.
46. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853-867.
47. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377:420-422.
48. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200(1):97-109.
49. Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski, and S. Nee 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences 2 - the handicap principle. Evolution 45:1431-1442.
50. Johnsen, T. S., and M. Zuk 1996. Repeatability of mate choice in female red jungle fowl. Behav. Ecol. 7(3):243-246.
51. Johnson, J. B., and A. L. Basolo 2003. Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behav. Ecol. 14:619-625.
52. Johnson, K., R. Thornhill, J. D. Ligon, and M. Zuk 1993. The direction of mothers and daughters preferences and the heritability of male ornaments in red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus). Behav. Ecol. 4:254-259.
53. Johnson, A. M., G. Chappell, A. C. Price, F. H. Rodd, R. Olendorf, and K. A. Hughes 2010. Inbreeding depression and inbreeding avoidance in a natural population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 116:448-457.
54. Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature 362:238-239.
55. Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter 1999. Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim. Behav. 57:521-528.
56. Karino, K. 1997. Female mate preference for males having long and symmetric fins in the bower-holding cichlid Cyathopharynx furcifer. Ethology 103:883-892.
57. Karino, K., T. Ishiwatari, H. Kudo, and A. Sato 2011. Female mate preference for a costly ornament in male guppies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:1305-1315.
58. Karubian, J., J. P. Swaddle, C. W. Varian-Ramos, and M. S. Webster 2009. The relative importance of male tail length and nuptial plumage on social dominance and mate choice in the red-backed fairy-wren Malurus melanocephalus: evidence for the multiple receiver hypothesis. J. Avian Biol. 40:559-568.
59. Kekalainen, J., H. Valkama, H. Huuskonen, and J. Taskinen 2010. Multiple sexual ornamentation signals male quality and predicts female preference in minnows. Ethology 116:895-903.
60. Kekalainen, J., H.-R. Leppanen, H. Huuskonen, Y.-T. Lai, H. Valkama, and J. Taskinen 2011. The information content of odour, colour and tactile cues in the mate choice of minnows. Behaviour 148:909-925.
61. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
62. Kirkpatrick, M.. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50:2125-2140.
63. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
64. Kodric-Brown, A., and P. F. Nicoletto 2001. Female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): the interaction between male color and display. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50:346-351.
65. Kotiaho, J., R. V. Alatalo, J. Mappes, and S. Parri 1996. Sexual selection in a wolf spider: male drumming activity, body size, and viability. Evolution 50:1977-1981.
66. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 269:1331-1340.
67. Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:43-66.
68. Kraak, S. B. M., T. C. M. Bakker, and B. Mundwiler 1999. Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behav. Ecol. 10:696-706.
69. Kuijper, B., I. Pen, and F. J. Weissing 2012. A guide to sexual selection theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43:287-311.
70. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3721-3725.
71. Leichty, E. R., and J. W. Grier 2006. Importance of facial pattern to sexual selection in golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). Auk. 123:962-966.
72. Ligon, J. D., R. Kimball, and M. Merola-Zwartjes 1998. Mate choice by female red junglefowl: the issues of multiple ornaments and fluctuating asymmetry. Anim. Behav. 55:41-50.
73. Loyau, A., M. S. Jalme, and G. Sorci 2005. Intra- and intersexual selection for multiple traits in the peacock (Pavo cristatus). Ethology 111:810-820.
74. Macias, G. C., G. Jimenez, and B. Contreras 1994. Correlation evidence of a sexually-selected handicap. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35:253-259.
75. Mateos, C., and J. Carranza 1995. Female choice for morphological features of male ring-necked pheasants. Anim. Behav. 49:737-748.
76. Mateos, C., and J. Carranza 1999. Effects of male dominance and courtship display on female choice in the ring-necked pheasant. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45:235-244.
77. Malmgren, J. C., and M. Enghag 2008. Female preference for male dorsal crests in great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 20:71-80.
78. Marchetti, K. 1998. The evolution of multiple male traits in the yellow-browed leaf warbler. Anim. Behav. 55:361-376.
79. Martin, J., and P. Lopez 2008. Female sensory bias may allow honest chemical signaling by male Iberian rock lizards. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:1927-1934.
80. McGlothlin, J. W., P. G. Parker, V. Nolan, and E. D. Ketterson 2005. Correlational selection leads to genetic integration of body size and an attractive plumage trait in dark-eyed juncos. Evolution 59:658-671.
81. McKinnon, J. S. 1995. Video mate preferences of female three-spined sticklebacks from populations with divergent male coloration. Anim. Behav. 50:1645-1655.
82. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:264-271.
83. Moller, A. P. 1993a. Sexual selection in the barn swaller Hirundo-rustica 3. Female tail ornaments. Evolution 47:417-431.
84. Moller, A. P.. 1993b. Morphology and sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo-rustica in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 252:51-57.
85. Moller, A. P., N. Saino, G. Taramino, P. Galeotti, and S. Ferrario 1998. Paternity and multiple signaling: effects of a secondary sexual character and song on paternity in the barn swallow. Am. Nat. 151:236-242.
86. Morehouse, N. I., and R. L. Rutowski 2010. In the eyes of the beholders: female choice and avian predation risk associated with an exaggerated male butterfly color. Am. Nat. 176:768-784.
87. Moreno-Rueda, G. 2006. Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating for morphological traits in Passer domesticus. J. Ethol. 24:227-230.
88. Murphy, T. G. 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.
89. Nicoletto, P. F. 1993. Female sexual response to condition-dependent ornaments in the guppy, Poecilia-reticulata. Anim. Behav. 46:441-450.
90. Nolan, P. M., F. S. Dobson, M. Nicolaus, T. J. Karels, K. J. McGraw, and P. Jouventin 2010. Mutual mate choice for colorful traits in King Penguins. Ethology 116:635-644.
91. Oakes, E. J., and P. Barnard 1994. Fluctuating asymmetry and mate choice in paradise whydahs, Vidua-paradisiae - an experimental manipulation. Anim. Behav. 48:937-943.
92. Okuda, N., K. Fukumori, and Y. Yanagisawa 2003. Male ornamentation and its condition-dependence in a paternal mouthbrooding cardinalfish with extraordinary sex roles. J. Ethol. 21:153-159.
93. Olendorf, R., F. H. Rodd, D. Punzalan, A. E. Houde, C. Hurt, D. N. Reznick, and K. A. Hughes 2006. Frequency-dependent survival in natural guppy populations. Nature 441:633-636 .
94. Oliveira, R. F., and M. R. Custodio 1998. Claw size, waving display and female choice in the European fiddler crab, Uca tangeri. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 10:241-251.
95. Palokangas, P., E. Korpimaki, H. Hakkarainen, E. Huhta, P. Tolonen, and R. V. Alatalo 1994. Female kestrels gain reproductive success by choosing brightly ornamented males. Anim. Behav. 47:443-448.
96. Petrie, M., and A. Williams 1993. Peahens lay more eggs for peacocks with larger trains. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 251:127-131.
97. Pizzolon, M., M. B. Rasotto, and C. Mazzoldi 2008. Male lagoon gobies, Knipowitschia panizzae, prefer more ornamented to larger females. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:521-528.
98. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection - the handicap principle does work sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.231(1262):123-145.
99. Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa 1993. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher runaway process of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 253:173-181.
100. Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa 2001. How does mate choice contribute to exaggeration and diversity in sexual characters. Pp: 203-220 in R. Noë, J. van Hooff, and P. Hammerstein, eds. Economics in nature: social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
101. Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa, and S. Nee 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. 1. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422-1430.
102. Pryke, S. R., and S. Andersson 2005. Experimental evidence for female choice and energetic costs of male tail elongation in red-collared widowbirds. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 86:35-43.
103. Pryke, S. R., S. Andersson, and M. J. Lawes 2001. Sexual selection of multiple handicaps in the red-collared widowbird: female choice of tail length but not carotenoid display. Evolution 55:1452-1463.
104. Regosin, J. V., and S. Pruett-Jones 2001. Sexual selection and tail-length dimorphism in scissor-tailed Flycatchers. Auk 118:167-175.
105. Robinson, D. M., M. S. Tudor, and M. R. Morris 2011. Female preference and the evolution of an exaggerated male ornament: the shape of the preference function matters. Anim. Behav. 81:1015-1021.
106. Rosenthal, G. G., and C. S. Evans 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(8):4431-4436.
107. Rosenthal, G. G., T. Y. F. Martinez, F. J. G. de Leon, and M. J. Ryan 2001. Shared preferences by predators and females for male ornaments in swordtails. Am. Nat. 158:146-154.
108. Ryan, M. J., and A. Keddy-Hector 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139:S4-S35.
109. Saino, N., C. R. Primmer, H. Ellegren, and A. P. Moller 1997. An experimental study of paternity and tail ornamentation in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Evolution 51:562-570.
110. South, S. H., and G. Arnqvist 2011. Male, but not female, preference for an ornament expressed in both sexes of the polygynous mosquito Sabethes cyaneus. Anim. Behav. 81:645-651.
111. Schlupp, I., R. Riesch, M. Tobler, M. Plath, J. Parzefall, and M. Schartl 2010. A novel, sexually selected trait in poeciliid fishes: female preference for mustache-like, rostral filaments in male Poecilia sphenops. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64:1849-1855.
112. Simmons, L. W. 1995. Correlates of male quality in the field cricket, Gryllus campestris L: age, size, and symmetry determine pairing success in field populations. Behav. Ecol. 6:376-381.
113. Simon, C. G., I. P. F. Owens, and T. Burke 1999. Female choice and annual reproductive success favour less-ornamented male house sparrows. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 266:765-770.
114. Sirkia, P. M., and T. Laaksonen 2009. Distinguishing between male and territory quality: females choose multiple traits in the pied flycatcher. Anim. Behav. 78:1051-1060.
115. Tazzyman, S. J., and Y. Iwasa 2010. Sexual selection can increase the effect of random genetic drift - a quantitative genetic model of polymorphism in Oophaga pumilio, the Strawberry poison-dart frog. Evolution 64:1719-1728.
116. Tomkins, J. L., and L. W. Simmons 1998. Female choice and manipulations of forceps size and symmetry in the earwig Forficula auricularia L. Anim. Behav. 56:347-356.
117. Veit, A. C., and I. L. Jones 2003. Function of tail streamers of red-tailed tropicbirds (Phaethon rubricauda) as inferred from patterns of variation. Auk 120:1033-1043.
118. Velando, A., C. M. Lessells, and J. C. Marquez 2001. The function of female and male ornaments in the Inca Tern: evidence for links between ornament expression and both adult condition and reproductive performance. J. Avian Biol. 32:311-318.
119. Watson, N. L., and L. W. Simmons 2010. Mate choice in the dung beetle Onthophagus sagittarius: are female horns ornaments? Behav. Ecol. 21:424-430.
120. Walling, C. A., N. J. Royle, J. Lindstroem, and N. B. Metcalfe 2008. Experience-induced preference for short-sworded males in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim. Behav. 76:271-276.
121. Weatherhead, P. J., and P. T. Boag 1995. Air and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37:81-91.
122. Wong, B. B. M., and G. G. Rosenthal 2006. Female disdain for swords in a swordtail fish. Am. Nat. 167:136-140.
123. Wilkinson, G. S., and P. R. Reillo 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 255:1-6.
124. Wilkinson, G. S., H. Kahler, and R. H. Baker 1998. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9:525-533.
125. Wilson, D. R., K. L. Bayly, X. J. Nelson, M. Gillings, and C. S. Evans 2008. Alarm calling best predicts mating and reproductive success in ornamented male fowl, Gallus gallus. Anim. Behav. 76:543-554.
126. Yezerinac, S. M., and P. J. Weatherhead 1997. Extra-pair mating, male plumage coloration and sexual selection in yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 264:527-532.
127. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-214.
128. Zampiga, E., H. Hoi, and A. Pilastro 2004. Preening, plumage reflectance and female choice in budgerigars. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 16:339-349.
129. Zuk, M., T. S. Johnsen, and T. Maclarty 1995a. Endocrine-immune interactions, ornaments and mate choice in red jungle fowl. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 260:205-210.
130. Zuk, M., S. L. Popma, and T. S. Johnsen 1995b. Male courtship displays, ornaments and female mate choice in captive red jungle fowl. Behaviour 132:821-836.