Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 552–557 | Cite as

Multiple sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks (Pavo cristatus)

  • Adeline Loyau
  • Michel Saint Jalme
  • Cécile Cagniant
  • Gabriele Sorci
Original Article

Abstract

The evolution of multiple sexual traits remains controversial and poorly understood in evolutionary biology. In many bird species, males exhibit complex courtships involving feather ornaments and behavioral display. Multiple traits may convey information on the genetic and phenotypic quality of males. In particular, fixed characters, such as feather ornaments (produced once a year during the annual molt in many bird species) might convey information about past male condition (at the time of trait development); whereas flexible traits such as behavioral displays should be sensitive to present condition. Here we show that both flexible behavioral displays and fixed feather ornaments of peacocks, used by females to choose a mate, honestly reflect health status. Correlative data showed that peacocks with high display rate (the number of behavioral displays per hour) and a large number of tail eyespots had low levels of circulating heterophils, suggesting better health status. Experimental activation of the immune system, through LPS injection, significantly reduced display rate compared to a control group. However, the sensitivity of a male display rate to the immune challenge was dependent on the number of tail eyespots: males with higher number of tail eyespots were better able to cope with the experimental immune challenge, and maintained their display rate at levels closer to the levels performed before the immune activation. These results are consistent with the idea that multiple signaling might enhance information reliability.

Keywords

Female choice Immune challenge Multiple traits Sexual selection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Thierry Boulinier, Etienne Danchin, Bart Kempenaers, Karen McCoy, Tommaso Pizzari, Ben Sheldon, and two anonymous referees who greatly improved previous versions of this manuscript. Yannick Roman and Jean-Marie Cannonville kindly helped with the screening of smears and heterophils counting. Financial support was provided by the Ministère de la Recherche (ACI Jeunes Chercheurs) to GS. The experiments conducted herein comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed

References

  1. Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite–mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2229–2233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson S, Pryke SR, Örnborg J, Lawes MJ, Andersson M (2002) Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a tradeoff between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. Am Nat 160:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonneaud C, Mazuc J, Gonzalez G, Haussy C, Chastel O, Faivre B, Sorci G (2003) Assessing the cost of mounting an immune response. Am Nat 161:367–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgia G, Collis K (1989) Female choice for parasite-free male satin bowerbirds and the evolution of bright male plumage. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:445–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (1997) Female choice in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: multiple cues from song and territory quality. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell TW (1995) Avian Hematology and Cytology. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  8. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Doucet S, Montgomerie R (2003) Multiple sexual ornaments in satin bowerbirds: ultraviolet plumage and bowers signal different aspects of male quality. Behav Ecol 14:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faivre B, Grégoire A, Préault M, Cézilly F, Sorci G (2003) Immune activation rapidly mirrored in a secondary sexual trait. Science 300:103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzpatrick S (1998) Bird tails as signaling devices: marking, shape, length and feather quality. Am Nat 151:157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP, Török J, Michl G, Péczely P, Richard M (2004) Immune challenge mediates vocal communication in a passerine bird: an experiment. Behav Ecol 15:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldsby RA, Kindt TJ, Osborne BA (2000) Immunology, 4th edn. WH Freeman and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473–516PubMedMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasson O (1989) Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proc R Soc Lond B 235:383–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill JA, Enstrom DA, Ketterson ED, Val Nolan J, Ziegenfus C (1999) Mate choice based on static versus dynamic secondary sexual traits in the dark-eyed junco. Behav Ecol 10:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1994) The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853–867Google Scholar
  22. Johnstone RA (1995) Honest advertisement of multiple qualities using multiple signals. J Theor Biol 177:87–94Google Scholar
  23. Johnstone RA (1996) Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 351:329–338Google Scholar
  24. Kodric-Brown A, Nicoletto PF (2001) Female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): the interaction between male color and display. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kokko H, Rintamäki PT, Alatalo RV, Höglund J, Karvonen E, Lundberg A (1999) Female choice selects for lifetime lekking performance in black grouse males. Proc R Soc Lond B 226:2109–2115Google Scholar
  26. Loehle C (1997) The pathogen transmission avoidance theory of sexual selection. Ecol Model 103:231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Sorci G (in press) Intra and intersexual selection for multiple traits in the peacock (Pavo cristatus). EthologyGoogle Scholar
  28. Manning JT, Hartley MA (1991) Symmetry and ornamentation are correlated in the peacock’s train. Anim Behav 42:1020–1021Google Scholar
  29. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:167–176Google Scholar
  30. Møller AP, Petrie M (2002) Condition dependence, multiple sexual signals, and immunocompetence in peacocks. Behav Ecol 13:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598–599Google Scholar
  32. Petrie M, Halliday T (1994) Experimental and natural changes in the peacock’s (Pavo cristatus) train can affect mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:213–217Google Scholar
  33. Petrie M, Halliday T, Sanders C (1991) Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim Behav 41:323–331Google Scholar
  34. Petrie M, Hall M, Halliday T, Budgey H, Pierpoint C (1992) Multiple mating in a lekking bird: why do peahens mate with more than one male and with the same male more than once? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y (1993) Evolution of multiple sexual ornaments by Fisher’s process of sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 253:173–181Google Scholar
  36. Poxton IR (1995) Antibodies to lipopolysaccharides. J Immunol Methods 186:1–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowe C (1999) Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav 58:921–931PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. SAS Institute (1999) SAS user’s guide: statistics. Version 6.12. Cary: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
  39. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1779–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheldon BC (1993) Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 339:491–497Google Scholar
  41. Sullivan MS (1994) Mate choice as an information gathering process under time constraint : implications for behaviour and signal design. Anim Behav 47:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verhulst S, Dielemen SJ, Parmentier HK (1999) A trade off between immunocompetence and sexual ornamentation in domestic fowl. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:4478–4481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wedekind C (1992) Detailed information about parasites revealed by sexual ornamentation. Proc R Soc Lond B 247:169–174Google Scholar
  44. Wedekind C (1994) Mate choice and maternal selection for specific parasite resistance before, during and after fertilization. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 346:303–311Google Scholar
  45. Yasmin S, Yahya HSA (1996) Correlates of mating success in Indian peafowl. Auk 113:490–492Google Scholar
  46. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adeline Loyau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michel Saint Jalme
    • 2
  • Cécile Cagniant
    • 2
  • Gabriele Sorci
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive, CNRS UMR 7103Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Bât. AParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Conservation des Espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations, CNRS UMR 5173Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleClèresFrance
  3. 3.BiogéosciencesUniversité de Bourgogne, CNRS UMR 5561DijonFrance

Personalised recommendations