Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 193–199 | Cite as

Sexual selection and cuckoldry in a monogamous songbird: implications for sexual selection theory

  • Geoffrey E. Hill
  • Robert Montgomerie
  • Christina Roeder
  • Peter Boag
Article

Abstract

Sexual selection is generally assumed to be weaker in monogamous than in polygynous animals. Recently, though, extra-pair fertilizations have been hailed as an important force in generating variance in reproductive success among males in socially monogamous species, thereby increasing the intensity of sexual selection. To see if extra-pair copulations contribute to variance in male reproductive success in the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), we used DNA fingerprinting to determine the paternity of chicks from 35 nests. This species is a socially monogamous passerine in which plumage brightness serves as a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Out of 119, nestlings 10 (8.3%) were fathered by a male other than the attending male, but cuckoldry occurred randomly with respect to the plumage colouration, size, or age of the attending male. Thus extra-pair fertilizations do not generate variance in male reproductive success with respect to plumage colour. On the other hand, a strongly male-biased sex ratio and asynchronous breeding by females may generate substantial variance in male reproductive success and could explain the evolution of ornamental colouration.

Key words

Sexual selection Cuckoldry Plumage colour Carpodacus mexicanus DNA fingerprinting 

References

  1. Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–820Google Scholar
  2. Arnold SJ (1983) Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 67–107Google Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1992) Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown CR, Stutchbury BJ, Walsh PD (1990) Choice of colony size in birds. Trends Ecol Evol 5:398–403Google Scholar
  5. Brush AH, Power DM (1976) House finch pigmentation: carotenoid metabolism and the effect of diet. Auk 93:725–739Google Scholar
  6. Burke T, Bruford M (1987) DNA fingerprinting in birds. Nature 327:149–152Google Scholar
  7. Burley N (1991) Mate selection by multiple criteria in a monogamous species. Am Nat 117:515–528Google Scholar
  8. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dominey WJ (1983) Sexual selection, additive genetic variance and the ‘phenotypic handicap’. J Theor Biol 101:495–502Google Scholar
  10. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Galbraith DA, Boag PT, Gibbs HL, White BN (1991) Sizing bands on autoradiograms: a study of precision for scoring DNA fingerprints. Electrophoresis 12:210–220Google Scholar
  12. Georges M, Lequarré A-S, Castelli M, Hanset R, Vassart G (1988) DNA fingerprinting in domestic animals using four different minisatellite probes. Cytogen Cell Gen 47:127–131Google Scholar
  13. Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473–516Google Scholar
  14. Hamilton TR (1991) Seasonal movement of house finches in the midwest. N Am Bird-Bander 16:119–122Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387Google Scholar
  16. Hill GE (1990) Female house finches prefer colorful males: sexual selection for a condition-dependent trait. Anim Behav 40:563–572Google Scholar
  17. Hill GE (1991) Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 350:337–339Google Scholar
  18. Hill GE (1992) The proximate basis of variation in carotenoid pigmentation in male house finches. Auk 109:1–12Google Scholar
  19. Hill GE (1993a) Geographic variation in carotenoid plumage pigmentation of house finches. Biol J Linn Soc 49:63–86Google Scholar
  20. Hill GE (1993b) House finch. In: Poole A, Gill F (ed) Birds of North America, no. 46. American Ornithologists' Union, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill GE (1993c) The proximate basis of inter- and intea-population variation in female plumage coloration in the House Finch. Can J Zool 71:619–627Google Scholar
  22. Hill GE (1994) Geographic variation in male ornamentation and female mate preference in the house finch: a comparative test of models of sexual selection. Behav Ecol 5:20–30Google Scholar
  23. Hoelzer G (1989) The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav 38:1067–1078Google Scholar
  24. Hoysak DJ, Weatherhead PJ (1991) Sampling blood from birds: a technique and an assessment of its effect. Condor 93:746–752Google 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. Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ (1990) The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180–193Google Scholar
  28. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:309–323Google Scholar
  29. Kornerup A, Wanscher JH (1983) Methuen handbook of colours. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Michener H, Michener JR (1931) Variation in color of male house finches. Condor 33:12–19Google Scholar
  31. Møller AP (1988) Female choice selects for male sexual trait ornaments in the monogamous swallow. Nature 322:640–642Google Scholar
  32. Nur N, Hasson O (1984) Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J Theor Biol 110:275–297Google Scholar
  33. Oring LW, Fleischer RC, Reed JM, Marsden KE (1992) Cuckoldry through stored sperm in the sequentially polyandrous spotted sandpiper. Nature 359:631–633Google Scholar
  34. Payne R (1984) Sexual selection, lek and arena behavior, and sexual size dimorphism in birds. Ornithol Monogr 33:1–53Google Scholar
  35. Seutin G, White BN, Boag PT (1991) Preservation of avian blood and tissue samples for DNA analyses. Can J Zool 69:82–90Google Scholar
  36. Smith HG, Montgomerie R, Põldmaa T, White BN, Boag PT (1991) DNA fingerprinting reveals relation between tail ornaments and cuckoldry in barn swallows,Hirundo rustica. Behav Ecol 2:90–98Google Scholar
  37. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson WL (1960) Agonistic behavior of the house finch. I. Annual cycle and display patterns. Condor 62:245–271Google Scholar
  39. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Heinemann, London, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  40. Westneat DF (1987) Extra-pair fertilizations in a predominantly monogamous bird. Anim Behav 35:877–886Google Scholar
  41. Westneat DF (1993) Polygyny and extra-pair fertilizations in eastern red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol 4:49–60Google Scholar
  42. Westneat DF, Noon WA, Reeve HK, Aquadro CF (1989) Improved hybridization conditions for DNA “fingerprints” probed with M13. Nucleic Acids Res 16:4161Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Zahavi A (1977) The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol 67:603–605Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey E. Hill
    • 1
  • Robert Montgomerie
    • 1
  • Christina Roeder
    • 1
  • Peter Boag
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyQueen's UniversityKingston, OntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations