Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Sex-specific fitness consequences of dispersal in Siberian jays

  • Phillip GienappEmail author
  • Juha Merilä
Original Paper

Abstract

In most birds, natal dispersal is female-biased, but the selective pressures leading to this pattern have rarely been explored with comprehensive data on lifetime reproductive success. In territorial birds, the benefit of philopatry should be higher for males than for females when males establish territories for which knowledge about the local environment is important. As females may use male characteristics for mate choice, and hence indirectly for territory choice, the benefit from the direct knowledge of the local environment may be lower for females than males. We tested this hypothesis using data from a long-term study of group living corvids, the Siberian jays (Perisoreus infaustus). In this species, the socially dominant offspring delay dispersal while the sub-dominant offspring leave the family group directly after reaching independence. Our results show that natal dispersal distance (a proxy for local knowledge) was related to sex and dispersal timing (a proxy for “quality”): Females and early dispersers traveled further on average than males and delayed dispersers. Furthermore, dispersal distance and timing were negatively related to the number of recruits produced over an individual’s lifetime in males, but not in females. Hence, the results support the hypothesis that the female-biased natal dispersal found in this and other bird species may come about through higher lifetime reproductive success of philopatric males than females.

Keywords

Natal dispersal Philopatry Fitness Lifetime reproductive success Siberian jay Local knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Academy of Finland (to P.G. and to J.M.), the University of Helsinki (to J.M.), Maj & Tor Nessling Foundation (to J.M.), and Kone Foundation (to P.G.). Bo-Göran Lillandt managed the fieldwork for many years and put the data at our disposal. He and many others also collected the data. Hanna Kokko, John Loehr, Amber Teacher, and Mark Hauber made helpful comments on the manuscript.

Ethical notes

Fieldwork for this study has been carried out under the necessary licenses and was in accordance with the relevant animal welfare regulations. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Glynn C (1986) Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature 323:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bart J, Earnst SL (1999) Relative importance of male and territory quality in pairing success of male rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:335–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélichon S, Clobert J, Massot M (1996) Are there differences in fitness components between philopatric and dispersing individuals? Acta Oecol 17:503–517Google Scholar
  5. Bensch S, Hasselquist D (1991) Territory infidelity in the polygynous great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus: the effect of variation in territory attractiveness. J Anim Ecol 60:857–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensch S, Hasselquist D, Nielsen B, Hansson B (1998) Higher fitness for philopatric than for immigrant males in a semi-isolated population of great reed warblers. Evolution 52:877–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomgren A (1964) Lavskrika. Bonniers, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke AL, Sæther B-E, Røskraft E (1997) Sex bias in avian dispersal: a reappraisal. Oikos 79:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (2001) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables. Biometrics 39:67–77Google Scholar
  11. Cramp S, Perrins CM (eds) (1993) The birds of the western Palaearctic. Vol. VII. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Dias PC, Blondel J (1996) Local specialization and mal-adaptation in the Mediterranean blue tit (Parus caeruleus). Oecologia 107:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobson FS (1982) Competition for mates and predominant juvenile dispersal in mammals. Anim Behav 30:1183–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doligez B, Pärt T (2008) Estimating fitness consequences of dispersal: a road to ‘know-where’? Non-random dispersal and the underestimation of dispersers' fitness. J Anim Ecol 77:1199–1211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekman J, Sklepkovych B, Tegelström H (1994) Offspring retention in the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus)—the prolonged brood care hypothesis. Behav Ecol 5:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekman J, Bylin A, Tegelström H (1999) Increased lifetime reproductive success for Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus) males with delayed dispersal. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:911–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekman J, Eggers S, Griesser M, Tegelström H (2001) Queuing for preferred territories: delayed dispersal of Siberian jays. J Anim Ecol 70:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekman J, Eggers S, Griesser M (2002) Fighting to stay: the role of sibling rivalry for delayed dispersal. Anim Behav 64:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Forero MG, Donázar JA, Hiraldo F (2002) Causes and fitness consequences of natal dispersal in a population of Black Kites. Ecology 83:858–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forslund P, Pärt T (1995) Age and reproduction in birds—hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 10:374–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fridolfsson AK, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J Avian Biol 30:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwood PJ, Harvey PH (1982) The natal and breeding dispersal of birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griesser M, Nystrand M, Ekman J (2006) Reduced mortality selects for family cohesion in a social species. Proc R Soc B 273:1881–1886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansson B, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2004) Lifetime fitness of short- and long-distance dispersing great reed warblers. Evolution 58:2546–2557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hinde RA (1956) The biological significance of the territories in birds. Ibis 98:340–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ingvarsson PK (2001) Restoration of genetic variation lost—the genetic rescue hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 16:62–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaari S, Li MH, Merilä J (2009) A first-generation microsatellite-based genetic linkage map of the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus): insights into avian genome evolution. BMC Genomics 10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaari S, Välimäki K, Merilä J (2008) Isolation and characterization of 100 polymorphic microsatellite loci for the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus). Mol Ecol Res 8:1469–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson ML, Gaines MS (1990) Evolution of dispersal: theoretical models and empirical tests using birds and mammals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:449–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koenig WD, VanVuren D, Hooge PN (1996) Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 11:514–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenormand T (2002) Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 17:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lillandt B (1993) Lavskrikans (Perisoreus infaustus) populationsutveckling inom ett sammanhängande skogsområde i Sydösterbotten 1974–1992. M.Sc. Thesis, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  39. Lillandt B, Bensch S, von Schantz T (2001) Parentage determination in kin-structured populations: microsatellite analyses in the Siberian Jay Perisoreus infaustus during a 25-year population study. Avian Sci 1:3–14Google Scholar
  40. Lillandt B, Bensch S, Hansson B, Wennerberg L, Von Schantz T (2002) Isolation and cross-species amplification of microsatellite loci in the Siberian Jay (Perisoreus infaustus). Hereditas 137:157–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lillandt BG, Bensch S, von Schantz T (2003) Family structure in the Siberian Jay as revealed by microsatellite analyses. Condor 105:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Madsen T, Shine R, Olsson M, Wittzell H (1999) Conservation biology—restoration of an inbred adder population. Nature 402:34–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mauck RA, Huntington CE, Grubb TC (2004) Age-specific reproductive success: evidence for the selection hypothesis. Evolution 58:880–885PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nilsson J-Å (1989) Causes and consequences of natal dispersal in the Marsh Tit, Parus palustris. J Anim Ecol 58:619–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oring LW, Lank DB (1982) Sexual selection, arrival times, philopatry and site fidelity in the polyandrous spotted sandpiper. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perrin N, Mazalov V (2000) Local competition, inbreeding, and the evolution of sex-biased dispersal. Am Nat 155:116–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Piper WH, Walcott C, Mager JN, Spilker FJ (2008) Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex-biased site familiarity. J Anim Ecol 77:205–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Price TD (1984) Sexual selection on body size, territory and plumage variables in a population of Darwin finches. Evolution 38:327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pusey AE (1987) Sex-biased dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in birds and mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 2:295–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pusey AE, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pärt T (1990) Natal dispersal in the collared flycatcher: possible causes and reproductive consequences. Ornis Scand 21:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pärt T (1991) Philopatry pays: a comparison between collared flycatchers sisters. Am Nat 138:790–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pärt T (1994) Male philopatry confers a mating advantage in the migratory collared flycatcher, Ficedula albicollis. Anim Behav 48:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pärt T (1995) The importance of local familiarity and search costs for age- and sex-biased philopatry in the collared flycatcher. Anim Behav 49:1029–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  58. Reid JM, Bignal EM, Bignal S, McCracken DI, Monaghan P (2003) Age-specific reproductive performance in red-billed choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax: patterns and processes in a natural population. J Anim Ecol 72:765–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Safran RJ (2007) Settlement patterns of female barn swallows Hirundo rustica across different group sizes: access to colorful males or favored nests? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1359–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slagsvold T (1986) Nest site settlement by the pied flycatcher—does the female choose her mate for the quality of his house or himself. Ornis Scand 17:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slatkin M (1985) Gene flow in natural populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:393–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Noordwijk AJ (1984) Problems in the analysis of dispersal and a critique on its ‘heritability’ in the Great Tit. J Anim Ecol 53:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Noordwijk AJ, DeJong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life history tactics. Am Nat 128:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verhulst S, van Eck HM (1996) Gene flow and immigration rate in an island population of great tits. J Evol Biol 9:771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vila C, Sundqvist AK, Flagstad O, Seddon J, Björnerfeldt S, Kojola I, Casulli A, Sand H, Wabakken P, Ellegren H (2003) Rescue of a severely bottlenecked wolf (Canis lupus) population by a single immigrant. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wheelwright NT, Mauck RA (1998) Philopatry, natal dispersal, and inbreeding avoidance in an island population of Savannah Sparrows. Ecology 79:755–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wheelwright NT, Schultz CB (1994) Age and reproduction in savanna sparrows and tree swallows. J Anim Ecol 63:686–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecological Genetics Research Unit Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations