Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 47–56

Sexual selection and the evolution of bird song: A test of the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis

  • Andrew F. Read
  • Daniel M. Weary
Article

Summary

Hamilton and Zuk (1982) suggested that secondary sexual characters evolve because they allow females to assess a potential mate's ability to resist parasites. A prediction of this theory is that the degree of elaboration of secondary sexual characters should be positively correlated with parasite load across species. In support of their hypothesis, Hamilton and Zuk reported a correlation across North American passerine species between haematozoa prevalence and both brightness and song “complexity and variety”, scored on a subjective six point scale. Here we show that this relationship is confounded by phylogenetic associations. We use quantitative data on song duration, inter-song interval, song continuity, song rate, song versatility, and song and syllable repertoire size for 131 species of European and North American passerines to test the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis. Across species, there are significant negative relationships between haematozoa prevalence and song continuity, contrary to the direction predicted by Hamilton and Zuk. In accordance with their prediction, there is a positive correlation with song versatility. However, these relationships come about through taxonomic associations: within taxa there are no consistent relationships between any of the song variables and haematozoa prevalence. None of the other song variables correlate with haematozoa prevalence. We conclude that there is no evidence of an association between song elaboration and parasites.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Gustafsson L, Lundberg A (1986) Do females prefer older males in polygynous bird species? Am Nat 127:241–245Google Scholar
  2. Baker MC, Bjerke TK, Lampe H, Espmark Y (1986) Sexual response of female great tits to variation in size of male's song repertoire. Am Nat 128:491–498Google Scholar
  3. Bennett PM, Harvey PH (1985) Relative brain size and ecology in birds. J Zool 207:151–169Google Scholar
  4. Borgia G (1986) Satin bowerbird parasites: a test of the bright male hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:355–358Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (1987) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. Report of the Dahlem workshop on sexual selection. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Canady RA, Kroodsma DE, Nottebohm F (1984) Population differences in complexity of a learned skill are correlated with the brain space involved. Proc Natl Acad Sci 81:6232–6234Google Scholar
  7. Catchpole CK (1982) The evolution of bird sounds in relation to mating and spacing behaviour. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic Communication in Birds Vol. 1. Academic, New York, pp 297–319Google Scholar
  8. Catchpole C (1987) Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 2:94–97Google Scholar
  9. Cuthill IC, Macdonald WA (in press) Experimental manipulation of the dawn and dusk chorus in the blackbird Turdus merula. Behav Ecol SociobiolGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobson CW, Lemon RE (1975) Re-examination of monotony threshold hypothesis in bird song. Nature 257:126–128Google Scholar
  12. Ericksson D, Wallin L (1986) Male bird song attracts females — a field experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:297–299Google Scholar
  13. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW (1985) Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:117–123Google Scholar
  14. Gottlander K (1987) Variation in the song rate of the male pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca — causes and consequences. Anim Behav 35:1037–1045Google Scholar
  15. Halliday TR (1987) Physiological constraints on sexual selection. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp 247–264Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387Google Scholar
  17. Hartshorne C (1973) Born to Sing. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvey PH, Mace GM (1982) Comparisons between taxa and adaptive trends: problems of methodology. In: King's College Sociobiology Groups (eds) Current Problems in Sociobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 343–362Google Scholar
  19. Harvey PH, Read AF, John JL, Gregory R, Keymer AE (in press) Perspective of an evolutionary biologist. In: Aeschlimann A, Toft C (eds) Parasitism: Coexistance or Conflict. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Hindmarsh AM (1984) Vocal mimicry in starlings. D. Phil thesis, Oxford, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard R, Moore A (1980) A Complete Checklist of Birds of the World. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirkpatrick M (1987) Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 18:43–70Google Scholar
  23. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favoured by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:309–323Google Scholar
  24. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1987) An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell Scientific, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs JR, Kroodsma DE (1980) Repertoires and geographical variation in bird song. In: Rosenblatt JS, Hinde RA, Beer C, Busnel MC (eds) Advances in the Study of Animal Behaviour. Academic, New York, pp 143–177Google Scholar
  26. Krebs JR, Ashcroft R, Webber MI (1978) Song repertoires and territory defense in the great tit. Nature 271:539–542Google Scholar
  27. Kroodsma DE (1977) Correlates of song organisation among North American wrens. Am Nat 111:995–1008Google Scholar
  28. Kroodsma DE (1982) Song repertoires: problems in their definition and use. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic Communication in Birds Vol. 2. Academic, New York, pp pp 125–146Google Scholar
  29. Lambrechts M, Dhondt AA (1986) Male quality, reproduction and survival in the great tit (Parus major). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:57–63Google Scholar
  30. Maynard Smith J (1985) Mini review: sexual selection and the handicap principle. J Theor Biol 115:1–8Google Scholar
  31. McGregor PK, Krebs JR, Perrins CM (1981) Song repertoires and lifetime reproductive success in the great tit (Parus major). Am Nat 118:149–159Google Scholar
  32. Morton ES (1975) Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 109:17–34Google Scholar
  33. Nottebohm F, Kasparian S, Pandazis C (1981) Brain space for a learned task. Brain Res 213:99–109Google Scholar
  34. Nottebohm F, Nottebohn ME, Crane L (1986) Developmental and seasonal changes in canary song and their relation to changes in the anatomy of song control nuclei. Behav Neural Biol 46:445–471Google Scholar
  35. Pagel MD, Harvey PH (1988) Recent developments in the analysis of comparative data. Q Rev Biol 63:413–440Google Scholar
  36. Payne RB (1986) Bird song and avian systematics. In: Johnston RF (ed) Current Ornithology Vol. 3. Plenum, New York, pp 87–126Google Scholar
  37. Payne RB, Payne K (1977) Social organisation and mating success in local song populations of village indigobirds Vidua chalybeata. Z Tierpsychol 45:113–173Google Scholar
  38. Pomiankowski A (1988) The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxford Surv Evol Biol 5:136–184Google Scholar
  39. Radesäter T, Jakobsson S, Andbjer N, Bylin A, Nyström K (1987) Song rate and pair formation in the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Anim Behav 35:1645–1651Google Scholar
  40. Read AF (1987) Comparative evidence supports the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis on parasites and sexual selection. Nature 327:68–70Google Scholar
  41. Read AF (1988) Sexual selection and the role of parasites. Tr Ecol Evol 3:97–102Google Scholar
  42. Read AF (in press) Parasites and the evolution of host sexual behaviour. In: Barnard CJ, Behnke JM (eds) Parasitism and Most Behaviour. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Read AF, Harvey PH (1989) Reassessment of comparative evidence for the Hamilton and Zuk theory on the evolution of secondary sexual characters. Nature 339:618–620Google Scholar
  44. Reid ML (1987) Costliness and reliability in the singing vigour of ipswich sparrows. Anim Behav 35:1735–1744Google Scholar
  45. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity. The comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryan MJ (1983) Sexual selection and communication in a neotropical frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Evolution 37:261–272Google Scholar
  47. Ryan MJ (1988) Energy, calling and selection. Am Zool 28:885–898Google Scholar
  48. Searcy WA (1979) Sexual selection and body size in male red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 33:649–661Google Scholar
  49. Searcy WA (1988) Dual intersexual and intrasexual functions of song in red-winged blackbirds. In: Ouellet H (ed) Proc. Acta XIX Congressus Int. Ornithol. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, pp 1373–1381Google Scholar
  50. Searcy WA, Andersson M (1986) Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:507–533Google Scholar
  51. Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE (1985) The phylogeny and classification of the passerine birds based on comparisons of the genetic material. In: Ilyichev VD, Gavrilov VM (eds) Proc. XVIII Congressus Internationalis Ornithologicus ACTA Vol. 1, Nauka, Moscow, pp 83–121Google Scholar
  52. Weary DM, Lemon RE (1988) Evidence against the continuity-versatility relationship in bird song. Anim Behav 36:1379–1383Google Scholar
  53. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Zuk M (in press) Parasites and bright birds: new data and a new prediction. In: Loye JE, Van Riper C, Zuk M (eds) Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution of Bird-Parasite Interactions. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew F. Read
    • 1
  • Daniel M. Weary
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations