Paternal attractiveness and the effects of differential allocation of parental investment

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 113, Issue , 2016, Pages 69-78

  Arnold, Kathryn E ^a   Gilbert, Lucy ^b   Gorman, Helen E ^c   Griffiths, Kate J ^c   Adam, Aileen ^c   Nager, Ruedi G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Androgens; Begging; Provisioning rates; Transgenerational maternal effects; Zebra finch

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN; BROOD SIZE; CLUTCH SIZE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FITNESS; INCUBATION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATERNAL EFFECT; NESTLING; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; PATERNAL EFFECT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

TAENIOPYGIA GUTTATA;

EID: 84955322185     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.12.013     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Alonso-Alvarez C., Bertrand S., Devevey G., Prost J., Faivre B., Sorci G. Increased susceptibility to oxidative stress as a proximate cost of reproduction. Ecology Letters 2004, 7:363-368.
2. Arnold K.E., Blount J.D., Metcalfe N.B., Orr K.J., Adam A., Houston D., et al. Sex-specific differences in compensation for poor neonatal nutrition in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Journal of Avian Biology 2007, 38(3):356-366.
3. Arnold K.E., Griffiths R., Stevens D.J., Orr K.J., Adam A., Houston D.C. Subtle manipulation of egg sex ratio in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2003, (Suppl. 2):216-219.
4. Arnold, K. E., & Nager, R. G. (2002). [Temporal variation in parental provisioning rates in zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata] Unpublished raw data.
5. Balzer A.L., Williams T.D. Do female zebra finches vary primary reproductive effort in relation to mate attractiveness?. Behaviour 1998, 135:297-309.
6. Bateson P., Barker D., Clutton-Brock T., Deb D., D'Udine B., Foley R.A., et al. Developmental plasticity and human health. Nature 2004, 430(6998):419-421.
7. Blount J.D., Metcalfe N.B., Arnold K.E., Surai P.F., Devevey G.L., Monaghan P. Neonatal nutrition, adult antioxidant defences and sexual attractiveness in the zebra finch. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2003, 270:1691-1696.
8. Blount J.D., Metcalfe N.B., Arnold K.E., Surai P.F., Monaghan P. Effects of neonatal nutrition on adult reproduction in a passerine bird. Ibis 2006, 148(3):509-514.
9. Blount J.D., Metcalfe N.B., Birkhead T.R., Surai P.F. Carotenoid modulation of immune function and sexual attractiveness in zebra finches. Science 2003, 300:125-127.
10. Boag P.J. Effects of nestling diet on growth and adult size of zebra finches (Poephila guttata). Auk 1987, 104:155-166.
11. Bolund E., Schielzeth H., Forstmeier W. Compensatory investment in zebra finches: females lay larger eggs when paired to sexually unattractive males. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009, 276(1657):707-715.
12. Bowers E.K., Munclinger P., Bureš S., Kučerová L., Nádvorník P., Krist M. Cross-fostering eggs reveals that female collared flycatchers adjust clutch sex ratios according to parental ability to invest in offspring. Molecular Ecology 2013, 22(1):215-228. 10.1111/mec.12106.
13. Burley N. Sex-ratio manipulation in color-banded populations of zebra finches. Evolution 1986, 40:1191-1206.
14. Burley N. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. American Naturalist 1986, 127:415-445.
15. Burley N. The differential-allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. American Nauralist 1988, 132:611-628.
16. Byers J.A., Waits L. Good genes sexual selection in nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103(44):16343-16345. 10.1073/pnas.0608184103.
17. Cunningham E.J.A., Russell A.F. Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 2000, 404:74-77.
18. Cuthill I.C., Hunt S., Cleary C., Clark C. Colour bands, dominance, and body mass regulation in male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1997, 264(1384):1093-1099.
19. von Engelhardt N., Carere C., Dijkstra C., Groothuis T.G.G. Sex-specific effects of yolk testosterone on survival, begging and growth of zebra finches. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006, 273(1582):65-70.
20. Gilbert L., Bulmer E., Arnold K.E., Graves J.A. Yolk androgens and embryo sex: maternal effects or confounding factors?. Hormones and Behavior 2007, 51(2):231-238.
21. Gilbert L., Williamson K.A., Graves J.A. Male attractiveness regulates daughter fecundity non-genetically via maternal investment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012, 279(1728):523-528. 10.1098/rspb.2011.0962.
22. Gilbert L., Williamson K.A., Hazon N., Graves J.A. Maternal effects due to male attractiveness affect offspring development in the zebra finch. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006, 273(1595):1765-1771. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3520.
23. Gilby A.J., Mainwaring M.C., Rollins L.A., Griffith S.C. Parental care in wild and captive zebra finches: measuring food delivery to quantify parental effort. Animal Behaviour 2011, 81(1):289-295. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.020.
24. Gil D., Graves J., Hazon N., Wells A. Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science 1999, 286:126-128.
25. Gorman H.E., Arnold K.E., Nager R.G. Incubation effort in relation to male attractiveness in zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata. Journal of Avian Biology 2005, 36:413-420.
26. Gorman H.E., Nager R.G. Prenatal developmental conditions have long-term effects on offspring fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2004, 271:1923-1928.
27. Grenna M., Avidano L., Malacarne G., Leboucher G., Cucco M. Influence of male dominance on egg testosterone and antibacterial substances in the egg of grey partridges. Ethology 2014, 120(2):149-158. 10.1111/eth.12189.
28. Griffith S.C., Buchanan K.L. Maternal effects in the zebra finch: a model mother reviewed. Emu 2010, 110(3):251-267.
29. Griffith S.C., Pryke S.R., Buttemer W.A. Constrained mate choice in social monogamy and the stress of having an unattractive partner. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2011, 10.1098/rspb.2010.2672.
30. Harris W.E., Uller T. Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009, 364(1520):1039-1048. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0299.
31. Hasegawa M., Arai E., Watanabe M., Nakamura M. High incubation investment of females paired to attractive males in barn swallows. Ornithological Science 2012, 11(1):1-8.
32. Horvathova T., Nakagawa S., Uller T. Strategic female reproductive investment in response to male attractiveness in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012, 279(1726):163-170. 10.1098/rspb.2011.0663.
33. Hunt S., Cuthill I.C., Swaddle J.P., Bennett A.T.D. Ultraviolet vision and band-colour preferences in female zebra finches, Taenipygia guttata. Animal Behaviour 1997, 54:1383-1392.
34. Jones K.S., Nakagawa S., Sheldon B.C. Environmental sensitivity in relation to size and sex in birds: meta-regression analysis. American Naturalist 2009, 174(1):122-133. 10.1086/599299.
35. Karadas F., Grammenidis E., Surai P.F., Acamovic T., Sparks C. Effects of carotenoids from lucerne, marigold and tomato on egg yolk pigmentation and carotenoid composition. British Poultry Science 2006, 47(5):561-566.
36. Klasing K.C. Comparative avian nutrition 2000, CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
37. Kolliker M., Richner H., Werner I., Heeb P. Begging signals and biparental care: nestling choice between parental feeding locations. Animal Behaviour 1998, 55:215-222.
38. Limbourg T., Mateman A.C., Andersson S., Lessells C.M. Female blue tits adjust parental effort to manipulated male UV attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2004, 271(1551):1903-1908. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2825.
39. Limbourg T., Mateman A.C., Lessells C.M. Opposite differential allocation by males and females of the same species. Biology Letters 2013, 9(1):20120835. 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0835.
40. Maguire S.E., Safran R.J. Morphological and genetic predictors of parental care in the North American barn swallow Hirundo rustica erythrogaster. Journal of Avian Biology 2010, 41(1):74-82. 10.1111/j.1600-048X.2009.04806.x.
41. Maigret J.L., Murphy M.T. Costs and benefits of parental care in eastern kingbirds. Behavioral Ecology 1997, 8(3):250-259.
42. Mazuc J., Chastel O., Sorci G. No evidence for differential maternal allocation to offspring in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14(3):340-346. 10.1093/beheco/14.3.340.
43. Michl G., Torok J., Peczely P., Garamszegi L.Z., Schwabl H. Female collared flycatchers adjust yolk testosterone to male age, but not to attractiveness. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16(2):383-388.
44. Monaghan P., Nager R.G. Why don't birds lay more eggs?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1997, 12(7):270-274.
45. Montoya B., Torres R. Male skin color signals direct and indirect benefits in a species with biparental care. Behavioral Ecology 2015, 26(2):425-434. 10.1093/beheco/aru204.
46. Mousseau T.A., Fox C.W. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1998, 13(10):403-407.
47. Nager R.G. The challenges of making eggs. Ardea 2006, 94(3):323-346.
48. Nash J.P., Cuisset B.D., Bhattacharyya S., Suter H.C., Le Menn F., Kime D.E. An enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) for testosterone, estradiol, and 17,20 beta-dihydroxy-4-pregenen-3-one using acetylcholinesterase as tracer: application to measurement of diel patterns in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 2000, 22(4):355-363.
49. Navara K.J., Badyaev A.V., Mendonca M.T., Hill G.E. Yolk antioxidants vary with male attractiveness and female condition in the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 2006, 79(6):1098-1105.
50. Owens I.P.F., Bennett P.M. Mortality costs of parental care and sexual dimorphism in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1994, 257:1-8.
51. Pariser E.C., Mariette M.M., Griffith S.C. Artificial ornaments manipulate intrinsic male quality in wild-caught zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Behavioral Ecology 2010, 21(2):264-269.
52. Qvarnström A. Experimentally enlarged badge size increases male competition and reduces male parental care in the collared flycatcher. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1997, 264:1225-1231.
53. Ratikainen I.I., Kokko H. Differential allocation and compensation: who deserves the silver spoon?. Behavioral Ecology 2010, 21(1):195-200. 10.1093/beheco/arp168.
54. Reid J.M., Bignal E.M., Bignal S., McCracken D.I., Monaghan P. Age-specific reproductive performance in red-billed choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax: patterns and processes in a natural population. Journal of Animal Ecology 2003, 72(5):765-776.
55. Rutstein A.N., Gilbert L., Slater P.J.B., Graves J.A. Mate attractiveness and primary resource allocation in the zebra finch. Animal Behaviour 2004, 68:1087-1094.
56. Rutstein A.N., Gorman H.E., Arnold K.E., Gilbert L., Orr K.J., Adam A., et al. Sex allocation in response to paternal attractiveness in the zebra finch. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16(4):763-769. 10.1093/beheco/ari052.
57. Saino N., Bertacche V., Ferrari R.P., Martinelli R., Møller A.P., Stradi R. Carotenoid concentration in barn swallow eggs is influenced by laying order, maternal infection and paternal ornamentation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2002, 269:1729-1734.
58. Sanz J.J. Experimentally reduced male attractiveness increases parental care in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Behavioral Ecology 2001, 12(2):171-176. 10.1093/beheco/12.2.171.
59. Sheldon B.C. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2000, 15:397-402.
60. Sheppard J.L., Clark R.G., Devries J.H., Brasher M.G. Reproductive effort and success of wild female mallards: does male quality matter?. Behavioural Processes 2013, 100:82-90. 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.07.024.
61. Spencer K.A., Heidinger B.J., D'Alba L.B., Evans N.P., Monaghan P. Then versus now: effect of developmental and current environmental conditions on incubation effort in birds. Behavioral Ecology 2010, 21(5):999-1004.
62. Tobler M., Sandell M.I. Sex-specific effects of prenatal testosterone on nestling plasma antioxidant capacity in the zebra finch. Journal of Experimental Biology 2009, 212(1):89-94.
63. Trivers R.L., Willard D.E. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 1973, 179:90-92.
64. Uller T., Eklof J., Andersson S. Female egg investment in relation to male sexual traits and the potential for transgenerational effects in sexual selection. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2005, 57(6):584-590. 10.1007/s00265-004-0886-2.
65. Veasey J.S., Houston D.C., Metcalfe N.B. A hidden cost of reproduction: the trade-off between clutch size and escape take-off speed in female zebra finches. Journal of Animal Ecology 2001, 70(1):20-24.
66. Vezina F., Williams T.D. The metabolic cost of egg production is repeatable. Journal of Experimental Biology 2005, 208(13):2533-2538. 10.1242/jeb.01675.
67. Williamson K., Gilbert L., Rutstein A.N., Pariser E.C., Graves J.A. Within-year differences in reproductive investment in laboratory zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata), an opportunistically breeding bird. Naturwissenschaften 2008, 95(12):1143-1148.
68. Witte K. The differential-allocation hypothesis: does the evidence support it?. Evolution 1995, 49(6):1289-1290.
69. Zann R.A. The zebra finch: A synthesis of field and laboratory studies 1996, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.