Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 119–126 | Cite as

Are the ratios of bill crossing morphs in crossbills the result of frequency-dependent selection?

  • Craig W. Benkman
Article

Summary

The direction the lower mandible curves in crossbills (Loxia) is an example of a discrete polymorphism. The lower mandible crosses with equal frequency to the left and to the right in several crossbill populations. I hypothesize that the 1:1 ratio results from negative frequency-dependent selection favouring the rarer morph. A crossbill always orients toward closed conifer cones so that its lower mandible is directed towards the cone axis. Thus, only part of the cone can be reached easily when crossbills have few perch sites and the cone cannot be removed from the branch or otherwise turned round. Since crossbills may visit cones which have previously been foraged on by other individuals, an equal frequency of left-to-right mandible crossings may minimize overlap in the use of cones and enhance foraging efficiency. Experimental data support this hypothesis. Moreover, the variation in the ratio of mandible crossing directions among crossbill populations is consistent with this hypothesis.

Keywords

conifer cones crossbills frequency-dependent selection foraging behaviour Loxia polymorphism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benkman, C.W. (1987a) Food profitability and the foraging ecology of crossbills.Ecol. Monogr. 57 251–67.Google Scholar
  2. Benkman, C.W. (1987b) Crossbill foraging behavior, bill structure, and patterns of food profitability.Wilson Bull 99 351–68.Google Scholar
  3. Benkman, C.W. (1988a) A 3: 1 ratio of mandible crossing direction in White-winged Crossbills.Auk 105 578–9.Google Scholar
  4. Benkman, C.W. (1988b) On the advantages of crossed mandibles: an experimental approach.Ibis 129 288–93.Google Scholar
  5. Benkman, C.W. (1989a) Intake rate maximization and the foraging behaviour of crossbills.Ornis Scand. 20 65–8.Google Scholar
  6. Benkman, C.W. (1989b) On the evolution and ecology of island populations of crossbills.Evolution 43 1324–30.Google Scholar
  7. Benkman, C.W. (1992) White-winged Crossbills. InThe birds of North America (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds), pp. 1–18. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  8. Benkman, C.W. (1993) Adaptation to single resources and the evolution of crossbill (Loxia) diversity.Ecol. Monogr. 63 305–25.Google Scholar
  9. Benkman, C.W. (1994) Comments on the ecology and status of the Hispaniolan crossbill (Loxia leucoptera megaplaga), with recommendations for its conservation.Caribb. J. Sci. 30 250–4.Google Scholar
  10. Benkman, C.W. and Lindholm, A.K. (1991) The advantages and evolution of a morphological novelty.Nature 349 519–20.Google Scholar
  11. Benkman, C.W., and Miller, R.E. (1996) Morphological evolution in response to fluctuating selection pressures. Manuscript submitted to Am. Nat.Google Scholar
  12. Génard, M. and Lescourret, F. (1987) The Common CrossbillLoxia curvirostra in the Pyrenees: some observations on its habitats and on its relations with conifer seeds.Bird Study 34 52–63.Google Scholar
  13. Groth, J.G. (1992) Further information on genetics of bill crossing in crossbills.Auk 109 389–5.Google Scholar
  14. Groth, J.G. (1993)Evolutionary Differentiation in Morphology, Vocalizations, and Allozymes among Nomadic Sibling Species in the North American Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) Complex.Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Hori, M. (1993) Frequency-dependent natural selection in the handedness of scale-eating cichlid fish.Science 260 216–19.Google Scholar
  16. James, P.C., Barry, T.W., Smith, A.R. and Barry, S.J. (1987) Bill crossover ratios in Canadian crossbillsLoxia spp.Ornis Scand. 18 310–12.Google Scholar
  17. Knox, A.G. (1983) Handedness in crossbillsLoxia and the AkepaLoxops coccinea.Bull. Br. Ornithol. Club 103 114–18.Google Scholar
  18. Maynard Smith, J. (1982)Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Milinski, M. and Parker, G.A. (1991) Competition for resources. InBehavioral ecology (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds), pp. 137–68. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Moreton, B.D. (1936) Crossbills' method of feeding on larch cones.Br. Birds 30 27–8.Google Scholar
  21. Newton, I. (1972)Finches. Collins, London.Google Scholar
  22. Schuster, S.M. and Wade, M.J. (1991) Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod.Nature 350 608–10.Google Scholar
  23. Senar, J.C., Borras, A., Cabrera, T. and Cabrera, J. (1993) Testing for the relationship between coniferous crop stability and Common Crossbill residence.J. Field Ornithol. 64 464–9.Google Scholar
  24. Takahashi, S. and Hori, M. (1994) Unstable evolutionarily stable strategy and oscillation: a model of lateral asymmetry in scale-eating cichlids.Am. Nat. 144 1001–20.Google Scholar
  25. Ticehurst, C.B. (1910) Dimorphism in the crossbill.Br. Birds 3 261–2.Google Scholar
  26. Tordoff, H.B. (1954) Social organization and behavior in a flock of captive, nonbreeding Red Crossbills.Condor 56 346–58.Google Scholar
  27. Webb, T., III (1988) Eastern North America. InVegetation history, Handbook of vegetation science, Vol. 7 (B. Huntley and T. Webb, III, eds), pp. 385–414. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig W. Benkman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations