Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1043–1052 | Cite as

Male sexual attractiveness affects the investment of maternal resources into the eggs in peafowl (Pavo cristatus)

  • Adeline Loyau
  • Michel Saint Jalme
  • Robert Mauget
  • Gabriele Sorci
Original Paper

Abstract

According to the differential investment hypothesis, females paired with attractive mates are expected to invest more in the current reproduction relative to females paired with unattractive males. We experimentally tested this hypothesis in the peafowl (Pavo cristatus) by providing females with males that differed in sexual attractiveness. In agreement with the differential allocation hypothesis, females paired with more ornamented males laid larger eggs, and deposited higher amounts of testosterone into the egg yolk, independently of the sex of the embryo. These results show that the association between paternal phenotype and offspring quality could arise via a differential maternal investment. They also suggest that, if ornamented males do transmit good genes to the progeny, the maternal differential investment can amplify the effect of such good genes on the offspring fitness.

Keywords

Good genes Maternal differential investment Egg size Yolk testosterone Sexual selection 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Jarek Szczepaniak and the keepers for their help in catching the birds, Laetitia Girard and Camille Liaigre for their assistance in rearing the chicks, and Didier Catteville for his technical advice. Many thanks is due for all the people who adopted the chicks. We are very grateful to Tim Parker, Jeff Graves, and an anonymous referee who greatly improved this manuscript. This work was supported by the CNRS (ACI Jeunes Chercheurs to GS), MNHN, and Conseil Général de Seine Maritime. The experiment conducted herein complies with the current laws of the country in which it was performed.

References

  1. Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2229–2233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber I, Arnott SA, Braithwaite VA, Andrew J, Huntingford FA (2001) Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomqvist D, Johansson OC, Götmark F (1997) Parental quality and egg size affect chick survival in a precocial bird, the lapwing Vanellus vanellus. Oecologia 110:18–24CrossRefGoogle 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. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burley N (1988) The differential allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am Nat 132:611–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey C, Rahn H, Parisi P (1980) Calories, water, lipid and yolk in avian eggs. Condor 82:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. Colegrave N (2001) Differential allocation and ‘good genes’: male-manipulation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:22–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2001) Differential allocation and ‘good genes’: other explanations. Trends Ecol Evol 16:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doty GV, Welch AM (2001) Advertisement call duration indicates good genes for offspring feeding rate in gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eising CM, Eikenaar C, Schwabl H, Groothuis TG (2001) Maternal androgens in black headed gull (Larus ridibundus) eggs: consequences for chick development. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eising CM, Müller W, Dijkstra C, Groothuis TGG (2003) Maternal androgens in egg yolks: relation with sex, incubation time and embryonic growth. Gen Comp Endocrinol 132:241–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elf PK, Fivizzani AJ (2002) Changes in sex steroid levels in yolks of the Leghorn chicken, Gallus domesticus, during embryonic development. J Exp Zool 293:594–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans J, Kelley JL, Bisazza A, Finazzo E, Pilastro A (2004) Sire attractiveness influences offspring performance in guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2035–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandes Martins TL (2004) Sex-specific growth rates in zebra finch nestlings: a possible mechanism for sex ratio adjustment. Behav Ecol 15:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadagkar R (2003) Is the peacock merely beautiful or also honest? Curr Sci 85:1012–1020Google Scholar
  21. Gasparini J, McCoy KD, Haussy C, Tveraa T, Boulinier T (2001) Induced maternal response to the Lyme disease spirochaete Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in a colonial seabird, the kittiwake Rissa tridactyla. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:647–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gil D, Graves J (2001) Differential allocation and ‘good genes’: pangloss once again. Trends Ecol Evol 16:21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gil D, Graves J, Hazon N, Wells A (1999) Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science 286:126–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gil D, Leboucher G, Lacroix A, Cue R, Kreutzer M (2004) Females canaries produce eggs with greater amount of testosterone when exposed to preferred male song. Horm Behav 45:64–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:475–518Google Scholar
  26. Grindstaff JL, Brodie ED, Ketterson ED (2003) Immune function across generations: integrating mechanism and evolutionary process in maternal antibody transmission. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2309–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 7:1071–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites. Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haq A-U, Bailey CA, Chinnah A (1996) Effect of β-carotene, canthaxanthin, lutein, and vitamin E on neonatal immunity of chicks when supplemented in broiler breeder diets. Poultry Sci 75:1092–1097Google Scholar
  30. Höglund J, Alatalo RV (1995) Leks. Krebs JR, Clutton-Brock T, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoyt DF (1979) Practical methods for estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96:73–77Google Scholar
  32. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jia F-Y, Greenfield MD (1997) When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1057–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnstone RA (1995) Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 70:1–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kear J (1965) The internal food reserves of hatching Mallard ducklings. J Wildl Manage 29:523–528Google Scholar
  36. Kirkpatrick M, Lande R (1989) The evolution of female characters. Evolution 43:485–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kokko H (2001) Fisherian and “good genes” benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol Lett 4:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kolm N (2001) Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2229–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lesna I, Sabelis MW (1999) Diet-dependent female choice for male with ‘good genes’ in a soil predatory mite. Nature 401:581–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Limbourg T, Mateman AC, Andersson S, Lessells CM (2004) Female blue tits adjust parental effort to manipulated male UV attractiveness. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1903–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipar JL, Ketterson ED (2000) Maternally derived yolk testosterone enhances the development of the hatching muscles in the red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoenicebus. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2005–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Sorci G (2005a) Intra- and intersexual selection for multiple traits in the peacock (Pavo cristatus). Ethology 111:810–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Cagniant C, Sorci G (2005b) Multiple sexual advertisement honestly reflect health status in peacocks (Pavo cristatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:552–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marshall RC, Leisler B, Catchpole CK, Schwabl H (2005) Male song quality affects circulating but not yolk steroid concentrations in female canaries (Serinus canaria). J Exp Biol 208:4493–4598Google Scholar
  45. Mazuc J, Chastel O, Sorci G (2003) No evidence for differential maternal allocation to offspring in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Behav Ecol 14:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Michl G, Török J, Péczely P, Garamszegi LZ, Schwabl H (2004) Female collared flycatchers adjust yolk testosterone to male age, but not to attractiveness. Behav Ecol 16:383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Møller AP, Thornhill R (1998) Male parental care, differential investment by females and sexual selection. Anim Behav 55:1507–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Møller AP, Petrie M (2002) Condition dependence, multiple sexual signals, and immunocompetence in peacocks. Behav Ecol 13:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore AJ (1994) Genetic evidence for the “good genes” process of sexual selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Möstl E, Spendier H, Krotrschal K (2001) Concentration of immunoreactive progesterone and androgens in the yolk of hen’s egg (Gallus domesticus). Wien Tierärztl Mschr 88:62–65Google Scholar
  52. Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptative significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Müller W, Groothuis TGG, Kasprzik A, Dijkstra C, Alatalo RV, Siitari H (2005) Prenatal androgen exposure modulates cellular and humoral immune function of black-headed gull chicks. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1971–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Palme R, Fischer P, Schildorfer H, Ismail MN (1996) Excretion of 14C-steroid hormones via faeces and urine in domestic livestock. Anim Reprod Sci 43:43–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parker TH (2003) Genetic benefits of mate choice separated from differential maternal investment in red junglefowl (Gallus gallus). Evolution 57:2157–2165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petrie M, Williams A (1993) Peahens lay more eggs for peacocks with larger trains. Proc R Soc Lond B 251:127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Petrie M, Halliday T, Sanders C (1991) Peahens prefer peacock with elaborate trains. Anim Behav 41:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Petrie M, Schwabl H, Brande-Lavridsen N, Burke T (2001) Sex differences in avian yolk hormone levels. Nature 412:489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pike TW, Petrie M (2005) Offspring sex ratio is related to paternal train elaboration and yolk corticosterone in peafowl. Biol Lett 1:204–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pilz KM, Adkins-Regan E, Schwabl H (2005) No sex difference in yolk steroid concentrations of avian eggs at laying. Biol Lett 1:318–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y (1998) Runaway ornament diversity caused by Fisherian sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:5106–5111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Price T, Schluter D, Heckman NE (1993) Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol J Linn Soc 48:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Promislow DEL, Smith EA, Pearse L (1998) Adult fitness consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10687–10692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Qvarström A, Price TD (2001) Maternal effects, paternal effects and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 16:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rands MRW, Ridley MW, Lelliott AD (1984) The social organization of feral peafowl. Anim Behav 32:830–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rubolini D, Romano M, Martinelli R, Leoni B, Saino N (2006) Effects of prenatal yolk androgens on armaments and ornaments of the ring-necked pheasant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rutstein AN, Gilbert L, Slater PJB, Graves J (2004) Mate attractiveness and primary resource allocation in the zebra finch. Anim Behav 68:1087–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Saino N, Bertacche V, Ferrari RP, Martinelli R, Møller AP, Stradi R (2002a) Carotenoid concentration in barn swallow eggs is influenced by laying order, maternal infection and paternal ornamentation. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1729–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Saino N, Ferrari RP, Martinelli MR, Rubolini D, Møller AP (2002b) Early maternal effects mediated by immunity depend on sexual ornamentation of the male partner. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1005–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. SAS (2001) SAS user’s guide: statistics. Release 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  75. Schwabl H (1993) Yolk is a source of maternal testosterone for developing birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:11449–11450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schwabl H (1996) Maternal testosterone in the avian egg enhances postnatal growth. Comp Biochem Physiol 114:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sheldon BC (1993) Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 339:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sheldon BC (2000) Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 15:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheldon BC (2001) Response to: differential allocation and ‘good genes’. Trends Ecol Evol 16:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sheldon BC, Arponen H, Laurila A Crochet P-A, Merilä J (2003) Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. J Evol Biol 16:1288–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Surai PF (2002) Selenium in poultry nutrition. 1. Antioxydant properties deficiency and toxicity. World´s Poultry Science Journal 58:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tanvez A, Béguin N, Chastel O, Lacroix A, Leboucher G (2004) Sexually attractive phrases increase yolk androgens deposition in Canaries (Serinus canaria). Gen Comp Endocrinol 138:113–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man. In: Campbell B (ed) Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  85. Trivers RL, Willard DE (1973) Natural selection of parental ability to vary sex-ratio of offspring. Science 179:90–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. von Engelhardt N, Carere C, Dijkstra C, Groothuis TGG (2006) Sex-specific effects of yolk testosterone on survival, begging and growth of zebra finches. Proc R Soc 273:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. West SA, Sheldon BC (2002) Constraints in the evolution of sex ratio adjustment. Science 295:1685–1688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams T (1994) Intraspecific variation in egg size and egg composition in birds: effects on offspring fitness. Biol Rev 68:35–59Google Scholar
  90. Williamson KA, Surai PF, Graves JA (2006) Yolk antioxidants and mate attractiveness in the Zebra Finch. Funct Ecol 20:354–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wolf JB, Brodie III ED, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: postcopulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adeline Loyau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michel Saint Jalme
    • 2
  • Robert Mauget
    • 2
  • Gabriele Sorci
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive, CNRS UMR 7103Université Pierre et Marie CurieParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Conservation des Espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations, CNRS UMR 5173Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance

Personalised recommendations