Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 227–233 | Cite as

Prey vulnerability in relation to sexual coloration of prey

  • Anders Pape Møller
  • Jan Tøttrup Nielsen
Original Article

Abstract

Sexual selection that results in the evolution of exaggerated secondary sexual characters has been hypothesized to impose production and maintenance costs of such traits on their bearers. Costs arising from sexual selection could increase the intensity of predator-mediated natural selection, leading to the prediction that species with exaggerated secondary sexual characters should be particularly susceptible to predation. We tested this prediction in a comparative analysis based on 31,745 prey individuals belonging to 66 species of birds collected from a total of 937 breeding events by 33 to 66 different pairs of European sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus annually during a period of 21 years. To assess vulnerability of different species we estimated a prey vulnerability index based on the difference in the logarithmically transformed absolute abundance of prey minus the logarithmically transformed expected abundance as determined by population density of breeding birds. The prey vulnerability index was predicted by sexual dichromatism, accounting for 23% of the variance in risk of predation among species, even when considering similarity in phenotype among species due to common descent (in the latter case explaining 12% of the variance). This finding suggests that sexual selection is an important evolutionary force-affecting predator–prey interactions.

Keywords

Accipiter nisus Host–parasite interactions Sexual dichromatism Sparrowhawk 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all landowners who provided access to their properties. H. Grunnet and J. K. Jensen helped collect some of the material. S. Rytkönen kindly provided constructive criticism.

Supplementary material

265_2006_160_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (47 kb)
Table S1 Information on species name, population density, number of prey individuals, prey selection index, body mass (g), nest site, coloniality, sexual dichromatism (dichotomous and continuous score, respectively), male plumage brightness, female plumage brightness, migratory status, and habitat for the 66 species included in the present study (PDF 48 kb)
265_2006_160_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (41 kb)
Phylogenetic relationships between the 66 different species of avian prey taken by European sparrowhawks (PDF 42 kb)

References

  1. Allen JA (1988) Frequency-dependent selection by predators. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 319:485–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15:149–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Badyaev AV (1997) Altitudinal variation in sexual dimorphism: a new pattern and alternative hypotheses. Behav Ecol 8:675–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker RR, Bibby CJ (1987) Merlin Falco columbarius predation and theories of the evolution of bird coloration. Ibis 129:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker RR, Parker GA (1979) The evolution of bird coloration. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 287:63–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barker FK, Barrowclough GF, Groth JG (2001) A phylogenetic hypothesis for passerine birds: Taxonomic and biogeographic implications of an analysis of nuclear DNA sequence data. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barker FK, Cibois A, Schikler P, Feinstein J, Cracraft J (2004) Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:11040–11045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Blondel J, Catzeflis F, Perret P (1996) Molecular phylogeny and thehistorical biogeography of the warblers of the genus Sylvia (Aves). J Evol Biol 9:871–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cibois A, Pasquet E (1999) Molecular analysis of the phylogeny of 11 genera of the Corvidae. Ibis 141:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cott HB (1947) The edibility of birds: Illustrated by five years’ experiments and observations (1941–1946) on the food preferences of the hornet, cat and man; and considered with special reference to the theories of adaptive coloration. Proc Zool Soc Lond 116:371–524Google Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (1992) Natural enemies: The population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunning Jr JB (1993) CRC handbook of avian body masses. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaton MD (2005) Human vision fails to distinguish widespread sexual dichromatism among sexually “monochromatic” birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:10942–10946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Endler JA (1991) Interactions between predators and prey. In: JR Krebs, NB Davies (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 169–196Google Scholar
  19. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garland Jr T, Harvey PH, Ives AR (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 41:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Götmark F (1992) Anti-predator effects of conspicuous plumage in a male birds. Anim Behav 44:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Götmark F (1993) Conspicuous coloration in male birds: favoured by predation in some species, disfavoured in others. Proc R Soc Lond B 253:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Götmark F, Post P (1996) Prey selection by sparrowhawks, Accipiter nisus: relative predation risk for breeding passerine birds in relation to their size, ecology and behaviour. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 351:1559–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green R (1979) Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Grell MB (1998) Fuglenes Danmark. Gad, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  26. Holling CS (1965) The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem Entomol Soc Can 45:1–60Google Scholar
  27. Huhta E, Rytkönen S, Solonen T (2003) Plumage brightness of prey increases predation risk: an among-species comparison. Ecology 84:1793–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. JMP (2000) JMP. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones KE, Purvis A (1997) An optimum body size for mammals? Comparative evidence from bats. Funct Ecol 11:751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1994) The evolution of plumage brightness in birds is related to extra-pair paternity. Evolution 48:1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Møller AP, Nielsen JT (1997) Differential predation cost of a secondary sexual character: Sparrowhawk predation on barn swallows. Anim Behav 54:1545–1551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Møller AP, Merino S, Brown CR, Robertson RJ (2001) Immune defense and host sociality: A comparative study of swallows and martins. Am Nat 158:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Møller AP, Marzal, A, Navarro C, de Lope F (2004) Predation risk, host immune response and parasitism. Behav Ecol 15:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mullarney T, Svensson L, Zetterström D, Grant PJ (2000) The complete guide to the birds of Europe. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Newton I (1986) The sparrowhawk. Poyser, BerkhamsteadGoogle Scholar
  36. Newton I, Marquiss M (1982) Food, predation and breeding season in sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus). J Zool 197:221–240Google Scholar
  37. Nielsen JT (2004) A population study of sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus in Vendsyssel, Denmark, 1977–1997. Dan Ornithol Foren Tidsskr 98:147–162 (Danish, with English summary)Google Scholar
  38. Nielsen JT (2004) Prey selection of sparrowhawks in Vendsyssel, Denmark. Dan Ornithol Foren Tidsskr 98:164–173 (Danish, with English summary)Google Scholar
  39. Opdam P (1978) Feeding ecology of a sparrowhawk population (Accipiter nisus). Ardea 66:137–155Google Scholar
  40. Petrie M (1992) Peacocks with low mating success are more likely to suffer predation. Anim Behav 44:585–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Purvis A, Rambaut A (1995) Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC). Comput Appl Biosci 11:247–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Read AF (1987) Comparative evidence supports the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis on parasites and sexual selection. Nature 328:68–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rytkönen S, Kuokkanen P, Hukkanen M, Huhtala K (1998) Prey selection by sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus and characteristics of vulnerable prey. Ornis Fenn 75:77–87Google Scholar
  44. Selås V (1993) Selection of avian prey by breeding sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus in southern Norway: the importance of size and foraging behaviour of prey. Ornis Fenn 70:144–154Google Scholar
  45. Sheldon FH, Slikas B, Kinnarney M, Gill FB, Zhao E, Silverin B (1992) DNA–DNA hybridization evidence of phylogenetic relationships among major lineages of Parus. Auk 109:173–185Google Scholar
  46. Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE (1990) Phylogeny and classification of birds, a study in molecular evolution. Yale Univ Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Sibley CG, Monroe Jr BL (1990) Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the World. Yale Univ Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Slagsvold T, Dale S, Kruszewics A (1995) Predation favours cryptic coloration in breeding male pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 50:1109–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Slikas B, Sheldon FH, Gill FB (1996) Phylogeny of titmice (Paridae): I. Estimate of relationships among subgenera based on DNA–DNA hybridization. J Avian Biol 27:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Svensson L (1984) Identification guide to European passerines. L. Svensson, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  52. van Beusekom CF (1972) Ecological isolation with respect to food between sparrowhawk and goshawk. Ardea 60:72 — 96Google Scholar
  53. Vermeij GJ (1987) Evolution and escalation: An ecological history of life. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  54. Viitala J, Korpimäki E, Palokangas P, Koivula M (1995) Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet-light. Nature 373:425–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive, CNRS UMR 7103Université Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance
  2. 2.SindalDenmark

Personalised recommendations