Some males are choosier than others: Species recognition in blue waxbills

Behaviour

Volumn 141, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 1021-1039

  Luddem, S T ^a   Collins, S A ^a   Brooks, M A ^a   Winter, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 9644262758     PISSN: 00057959     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/1568539042360170     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alatalo, R.V., Gustafsson, L. & Lundberg, A. (1994). Male coloration and species recognition in sympatric flycatchers. - Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 256, p. 113-118.
2. Amundsen, T. (2000). Why are female birds ornamented? - TREE 15, p. 149-155.
3. _, Fosgren, E. & Hansen, L.T.T. (1997). On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. - Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 264, p. 1579-1586.
4. Andersson, M. (1982). Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. - Nature 299, p. 818-820.
5. _, (1994). Sexual selection. - Princeton University Press, Princeton.
6. Arnold, M.L. & Hodges, S.A. (1995). Are natural hybrids fit or unfit relative to their parents? - TREE 10, p. 67-71.
7. Basolo, A.L. & Delaney, K.J. (2001). Male biases for male characteristics in females in Priapella olmecae and Xiphophorus helleri (Family Poeciliidae). - Ethology 107, p. 431-438.
8. Barbraud, C., Weimerskirch, H., Robertson, G.G. & Jouventin, P. (1999). Size-related life history traits: insights from a study of snow petrels (Pagodroma nivea). - J. Anim. Ecol. 68, p. 1179-1192.
9. Blums, P., Clark, R.G. & Mednis, A. (2002). Patterns of reproductive effort and success in birds: path analyses of long-term data from European ducks. - J. Anim. Ecol. 71, p. 280-295.
10. Burley, N. (1977). Parental investment, mate choice, and mate quality. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA 74, p. 3476-3479.
11. ten Cate, C. & Mug, G. (1984). The development of mate choice in zebra finch females. -Behaviour 90, p. 125-150.
12. Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Vincent, A.C.J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. - Nature 351, p. 58-60.
13. Collins, S.A. (1994). Male display: cause or effect of female preference? - Anim. Behav. 48, p. 371-375.
14. _, & Luddem, S.T. (2002). Degree of male ornamentation affects female preference for conspecific versus heterospecific males. - Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 269, p. 111-117.
15. Cuervo, J.J., de Lope, F. & Moller, A.P. (1995). The function of long tails in female barn swallows (Hirundo rustica): an experimental study. - Behav. Ecol. 7, p. 132-136.
16. Dale, S. & Slagsvold, T. (1994). Male pied flycatchers do not choose mates. - Anim. Behav. 47, p. 1197-1205.
17. Dobzhansky, T. (1940). Speciation as a stage of evolutionary divergence. - Am. Nature 74, p. 312-321.
18. Goodwin, D. (1982). Estrildid finches of the world. British Museum (Natural History). - Oxford University Press, Oxford.
19. Grant, P.R. & Grant, B.R. (1992). Hybridization of bird species. - Science 256, p. 193-197.
20. _, & Petren, K. (2000). The allopatric phase of speciation: the sharp-beaked ground finch (Gesospiza difficilis) on the Galapogos islands. - Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 69, p. 287-317.
21. Houtman, A.M. (1992). Female zebra finches choose extra-pair copulations with genetically attractive males. - Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 249, p. 3-6.
22. Howard, D.J. (1993). Reinforcement: origins, dynamics, and the fate of an evolutionary hypothesis. - In: Hybrid zones and evolutionary process (R.G. Harrison, ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 46-69.
23. Johnson, S.G. & Johnston, R.F. (1989). A multifactorial study of variation in inter-clutch interval and annual reproductive success in the feral pigeon, Columba livia. - Oecologia 80, p. 92.
24. Jones, I.L. & Hunter, F.M. (1993). Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. - Nature, p. 238-239.
25. Jones, K.M., Monaghan, P. & Nager, R.G. (2001). Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches. - Anim. Behav. 62, p. 1021-1026.
26. de Kort, S.R. & ten Cate, C. (2001). Response to interspecific vocalizations is affected by degree of phylogenetic relatedness in Streptopelia doves. - Anim. Behav. 61, p. 239-247.
27. Lande, R. (1980). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation on polygenic characters. - Evolution 34, p. 292-305.
28. Liker, A. & Barta, Z. (2001). Male badge size predicts dominance against females in house sparrows. - Condor 103, p. 151-157.
29. Lynch, A. & Baker, A.J. (1990). Increased vocal discrimination by learning in sympatry in two species of chaffinches. - Behaviour 116, p. 109-125.
30. Marquez, R. & Bosch, J. (1997). Male advertisement call and female preference in sympatric and allopatric midwife toads. - Anim. Behav. 54, p. 1333-1345.
31. Marshall, J.L., Arnold, M.L. & Howard, D.J. (2002). Reinforcement: the road not taken. - TREE 17, p. 558-563.
32. Monaghan, P., Metcalfe, N.B. & Houston, D.C. (1996). Male finches selectively pair with fecund females. - Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 263, p. 1183-1186.
33. Noor, M.A.F. (1997). How often does sympatry affect sexual isolation in Drosophila? - Am. Nat. 149, p. 1158-1163.
34. Peters, R.H. (1983). The ecological implications of body size. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35. Petrie, M., Halliday, T. & Sanders, C. (1991). Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. - Anim. Behav. 41, p. 323-331.
36. Pfennig, K.S. (1998). The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. - Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 265, p. 1743-1748.
37. _ (2000). Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. - Behav. Ecol. 11, p. 220-227.
38. Robb, L.A., Martin, K. & Hannon, S.J. (1992). Spring body condition, fecundity and survival in female willow ptarmigan. - J. Anim. Ecol. 61, p. 215-223.
39. Roulin, A., Dijkstra, C., Riols, C. & Ducrest, A.L. (2001). Female- and male-specific signals of quality in the barn owl. - J. Evol. Biol. 14, p. 255-266.
40. Ryan, M.J. & Rand, A.S. (1993). Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. - Evolution 47, p. 647-657.
41. Saetre, G.P., Kral, M. & Bures, S. (1997). Differential species recognition abilities of males and females in a flycatcher hybrid zone. - J. Avian Biol. 28, p. 259-263.
42. Trivers, R.L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. - In: Sexual selection and the descent of man (B. Campbell, ed.). Aldine, Chicago, p. 139-179.
43. Veen, T., Borge, T., Griffith, S.C., Saetre, G.-P., Bures, S., Gustafsson, L. & Sheldon, B. (2001). Hybridisation and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. - Nature 411, p. 45-50
44. Velando, A., Lesslels, C.M. & Marquez, J.C. (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, p. 311-318.
45. Zann, R.A. (1996). Social and reproductive behaviour. - In: The zebra finch. A synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 157-194.