Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 149–156 | Cite as

Copulation behavior and paternity in the chaffinch

  • B. C. Sheldon
  • T. Burke
Article

Summary

We investigated two aspects of sperm competition in a wild population of chaffinches Fringilla coelebs: copulation behavior and genetic parentage determined by DNA fingerprinting. Pairs copulated at a high rate before laying, peaking at 4.4 copulation attempts per hour on day −3 relative to laying, with an average of 207 copulation attempts (83 behaviorally successful) per clutch. Extra-pair copulation attempts (n = 20) made up 7.8% of all copulation attempts that females were involved in. The rate at which pairs copulated was lower during egg-laying, but there was no evidence that this was due to the male of the pair timing copulations to coincide with an ‘insemination window’; it was more likely due to the fact that females solicited copulations at a lower rate. Both sexes solicited copulations but males solicited mainly extra-pair copulations. DNA fingerprinting showed that 17.0% of chicks (n = 47) in 23% of broods (n = 13) were fathered by a male other than the one paired to their mother. There was no evidence of intraspecific brood parasitism. In three cases where we were able to identify the father of extra-pair offspring it proved to be a neighboring male.

Key words

Copulation behavior DNA fingerprinting Fringilla coelebs Paternity Sperm competition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amos W, Barrett JA, Pemberton JM (1992) DNA fingerprinting: parentage studies in natural populations and the importance of linkage analysis. Proc R. Soc London B 249:157–162Google Scholar
  2. Arvidsson BL (1992) Copulation and mate guarding in the willow warbler. Anim Behav 43:501–510Google Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR (1991) Sperm depletion in the Bengalese finch, Lonchura striata. Behav Ecol 2:267–275Google Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Fletcher F (1992) Sperm to spare? Sperm allocation by male zebra finches. Anim Behav 43:1053–1055Google Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Lessells CM (1988) Copulation behaviour in the osprey Pandion hailaetus. Anim Behav 36:1672–1682Google Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1992) Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1993a) Why do male birds stop copulating while their partners are still fertile? Anim Behav 45:105–118Google Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR, Moller AP (1993b) Female control of paternity. Trends Ecol Evol 8:100–104Google Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR, Atkin L, Moller AP (1987) Copulation behaviour of birds. Behaviour 101:101–138Google Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR, Pellatt JE, Hunter FM (1988) Extra-pair copulation and sperm competition in the zebra finch. Nature 334:60–62Google Scholar
  11. Birkhead TR, Burke T, Zann R, Hunter FM, Krupa AP (1990) Extra-pair paternity and intraspecific brood parasitism in wild zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata, revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:315–324Google Scholar
  12. Briskie JV (1992) Copulation patterns and sperm competition in the polygynandrous Smith's longspur. Auk 109:563–575Google Scholar
  13. Briskie JV (1993) Anatomical adaptations to sperm competition in Smith's longspurs and other polygynandrous passerines. Auk, in pressGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruford MW, Hanotte O, Brookfield JFY, Burke T (1992) Single locus and multilocus DNA fingerprinting. In: Hoelzel R (ed) Molecular genetic analysis of populations: a practical approach. IRL Press, Oxford, pp 225–269Google Scholar
  15. Burke T (1989) DNA fingerprinting and other methods for the study of mating success. Trends Ecol Evol 4:139–144Google Scholar
  16. Burke T, Bruford MW (1987) DNA fingerprinting in birds. Nature 327:149–152Google Scholar
  17. Burke T, Davies NB, Bruford MW, Hatchwell BJ (1989) Parental care and mating behaviour of polyandrous dunnocks Prunella modularis related to paternity by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 338:249–251Google Scholar
  18. Carter RE, Wetton JH, Parkin DT (1989) Improved DNA fingerprinting using RNA probes. Nucleic Acids Res 17:58–67Google Scholar
  19. Cheng KM, Burns JT, McKinney F (1983) Forced copulation in captive mallards. III. Sperm competition. Auk 100:302–310Google Scholar
  20. Davies NB, Hatchwell BJ, Robson T, Burke T (1992) Paternity and parental effort in dunnocks, Prunella modularis: how good are chick-feeding rules? Anim Behav 43:729–745Google Scholar
  21. Gelter HP, Tegelstrom H (1992) High frequency of extra-pair paternity in Swedish pied flycatchers revealed by allozyme electrophoresis and DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:1–7Google Scholar
  22. Gibbs HL, Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT, White BN, Tabak LM, Hoysak DJ (1990) Realized reproductive success of polygynous red-winged blackbirds revealed by DNA markers. Science 250:1394–1397Google Scholar
  23. Hatchwell BJ, Davies NB (1992) An experimental study of mating competition in monogamous and polyandrous dunnocks Prunella modularis. I. Mate guarding and copulations. Anim Behav 43:595–609Google Scholar
  24. Hunter FM, Burke T, Watts SE (1992) Frequent copulation as a method of paternity assurance in the northern fulmar. Anim Behav 44:149–156Google Scholar
  25. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985) Hypervariable minisatellite regions in human DNA. Nature 314:67–73Google Scholar
  26. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt AA (1992) Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494–496Google Scholar
  27. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lifeld JT, Robertson RJ (1992) Female control of extra-pair fertilization in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:89–96Google Scholar
  29. Lifjeld JT, Slagsvold T, Lampe HM (1991) Low frequency of extra-pair paternity in pied flycatchers revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:95–101Google Scholar
  30. Lifjeld JT, Dunn PO, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1993) Extra-pair paternity in monogamous tree swallows. Anim Behav 45:213–229Google Scholar
  31. Marler P (1956) Behaviour of the chaffinch. Behaviour Suppl V: 1–184Google Scholar
  32. McKitrick MC (1990) Genetic evidence for multiple parentage in eastern kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:149–155Google Scholar
  33. Møller AP (1986) Mating systems among European passerines. Ibis 128:234- 250Google Scholar
  34. Møller AP (1987a) Copulation behaviour of the goshawk, Accipiter gentilis. Anim Behav 35:755–763Google Scholar
  35. Møller AP (1987b) Behavioural aspects of sperm competition in swallows (Hirundo rustica). Behaviour 100:92–104Google Scholar
  36. Møller AP (1991) Sperm competition, sperm depletion, paternal care and relative testis size in birds. Am Nat 137:882–906Google Scholar
  37. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1991) Frequent copulations and mate guarding as alternative paternity guards in birds: a comparative study. Behaviour 118:170–186Google Scholar
  38. Montgomerie R, Thornhill R (1989) Fertility advertisement in birds: a means of inciting male-male competition? Ethology 81:209–220Google Scholar
  39. Mulder RA (1992) Evolutionary ecology of the mating system of superb fairy wrens. PhD thesis, Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  40. Nakamura M (1990) Cloacal protuberance and copulatory behavior of the alpine accentor. Auk 107:284–295Google Scholar
  41. Petrie M, Møller AP (1991) Introductory remarks: brood parasitism. Acta XX Congr Int Ornithol, 1001-1002Google Scholar
  42. Oring LW, Fleischer RC, Reed JM, Marsden KE (1992) Cuckoldry through stored sperm in the sequentially polyandrous spotted sandpiper. Nature 359:631–633Google Scholar
  43. Sheldon BC (1992) Sperm competition in the chaffinch: behaviour, anatomy and paternity. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheldon BC (1994) Sperm competition in the chaffinch: the role of the female. Anim Behav 47:163–173Google Scholar
  45. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Venier LA, Robertson RJ (1991) Copulation behaviour of the tree swallow, Tachycineta bicolor: paternity assurance in the presence of sperm competition. Anim Behav 42:939–948Google Scholar
  47. Westneat DF (1987a) Extra-pair fertilisations in a predominantly monogamous songbird: observations of behaviour. Anim Behav 35:865–876Google Scholar
  48. Westneat DF (1987b) Extra-pair fertilisations in a predominantly monogamous songbird: genetic evidence. Anim Behav 35:877–886Google Scholar
  49. Westneat DF (1990) Genetic parentage in the indigo bunting: a study using DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:67–76Google Scholar
  50. Westneat DF (1992) Do female red-winged blackbirds engage in a mixed mating strategy? Ethology 92:7–28Google Scholar
  51. Westneat DF (1993) Polygyny and extra-pair fertilizations in eastern red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol 4:49–60Google Scholar
  52. Wetton JH, Carter RE, Parkin DT, Walters D (1987) Demographic study of a wild house sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327:147–149Google Scholar
  53. Wrege PH, Emlen ST (1987) Biochemical determination of parental uncertainty in white-fronted bee-eaters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:153–160Google Scholar
  54. Yom-Tov Y (1980) Intraspecific parasitism in birds. Biol Rev 55:93–108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. C. Sheldon
    • 1
  • T. Burke
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations