Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 6, pp 975–984 | Cite as

Singing activity stimulates partner reproductive investment rather than increasing paternity success in zebra finches

  • Elisabeth Bolund
  • Holger Schielzeth
  • Wolfgang Forstmeier
Original Paper

Abstract

Song is used as a signal in sexual selection in a wide range of taxa. In birds, males of many species continue to sing after pair formation. It has been suggested that a high song output after pair formation might serve to attract extra-pair females and to minimise their own partner’s interest in extra-pair copulations. A non-exclusive alternative function that has received only scant attention is that the amount of song might stimulate the own female’s investment into eggs in a quantitative way. We address these hypotheses in a captive population of zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata, by relating male undirected song output (i.e. non-courtship song) to male egg siring success and female reproductive investment in two different set-ups. When allowed to breed in aviaries, males with the highest song output were no more attractive than others to females in an analysis of 4,294 extra-pair courtships involving 164 different males, and they also did not sire more offspring (both trends were against the expectation). When breeding in cages with two different partners subsequently, females produced larger eggs with more orange yolks when paired to a male with a high song output. These findings suggest that singing activity in paired zebra finch males might primarily function to stimulate the partner and not to attract extra-pair females.

Keywords

Energetic costs Honest signalling Quality indicator Reproductive stimulation Song output Taeniopygia guttata 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Bart Kempenaers for providing facilities and various other support. James Dale provided helpful suggestions on a previous version of the manuscript. We thank Melanie Schneider for performing molecular and hormone work and Katrin Martin for help with video analyses. Our gratitude also goes to our animal care takers: Sonja Bauer, Edith Bodendörfer, Annemarie Grötsch, Johann Hacker, Markus Lehr, Jenny Minshull, Petra Neubauer, Frances Preiniger, Magnus Ruhdorfer and Agnes Türk. Funding was provided by the German Science Foundation (DFG) through an Emmy Noether Fellowship to W.F. (FO 340/1-2 and FO 340/1-3).

Ethical standards

The study was approved by the animal care and ethics representative of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Glynn C, Lundberg A (1990) Singing rate and female attraction in the pied flycatcher: an experiment. Anim Behav 39:601–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Backström N, Forstmeier W, Schielzeth H, Mellenius H, Nam K, Bolund E, Webster MT, Öst T, Schneider M, Kempenaers B, Ellegren H (2010) The recombination landscape of the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata genome. Genome Res 20:485–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Dai B (2008) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-27Google Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Pellatt J, Hunter FM (1988) Extra-pair copulation and sperm competition in the zebra finch. Nature 334:60–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Burke T, Zann R, Hunter FM, Krupa AP (1990) Extra-pair paternity and intraspecific brood parasitism in wild zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata, revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolund E, Schielzeth H, Forstmeier W (2009) Compensatory investment in zebra finches: females lay larger eggs when paired to sexually unattractive males. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burley N (1988) The differential-allocation hypothesis—an experimental test. Am Nat 132:611–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burley NT, Parker PG, Lundy K (1996) Sexual selection and extrapair fertilization in a socially monogamous passerine, the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Behav Ecol 7:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caryl PG (1976) Sexual behaviour in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata: response to familiar and novel partners. Anim Behav 24:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (2008) Bird song: biological themes and variations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charlton BD, Reby D, McComb K (2007) Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biol Lett 3:382–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale J, Lank DB, Reeve HK (2001) Signaling individual identity versus quality: a model and case studies with ruffs, queleas, and house finches. Am Nat 158:75–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB, Lundberg A (1984) Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock, Prunella modularis. J Anim Ecol 53:895–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn AM, Zann RA (1996a) Undirected song encourages the breeding female zebra finch to remain in the nest. Ethology 102:540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunn AM, Zann RA (1996b) Undirected song in wild zebra finch flocks: contexts and effects of mate removal. Ethology 102:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans SM (1970) Aggressive and territorial behaviour in captive zebra finches. Bird Study 17:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forstmeier W (2005) Quantitative genetics and behavioural correlates of digit ratio in the zebra finch. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:2641–2649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forstmeier W, Balsby TJS (2002) Why mated dusky warblers sing so much: territory guarding and male quality announcement. Behaviour 139:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forstmeier W, Martin K, Bolund E, Schielzeth H, Kempenaers B (2011) Female extrapair mating behavior can evolve via indirect selection on males. P Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:10608–10613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franz M, Goller F (2003) Respiratory patterns and oxygen consumption in singing zebra finches. J Exp Biol 206:967–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerhard HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Getty T (2006) Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol Evol 21:83–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gil D, Gahr M (2002) The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gottlander K (1987) Variation in the song rate of the male pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 35:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gowaty PA, Anderson WW, Bluhm CK, Drickamer LC, Kim YK, Moore AJ (2007) The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:15023–15027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grafen A (1990a) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grafen A (1990b) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffith SC, Holleley CE, Mariette MM, Pryke SR, Svedin N (2010) Low level of extrapair parentage in wild zebra finches. Anim Behav 79:261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hinde RA, Steel E (1976) Effect of male song on an estrogen-dependent behavior pattern in female Canary Serinus canarius. Horm Behav 7:293–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Janker S (2009) Inbreeding depression in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Master thesis. Ludwig-Maximilian Universität, MunichGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson F, Rashotte ME (2002) Food availability but not cold ambient temperature affects undirected singing in adult male zebra finches. Physiol Behav 76:9–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kroodsma DE (1976) Reproductive development in a female songbird—differential stimulation by quality of male song. Science 192:574–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kroodsma DE, Byers BE (1991) The function(s) of bird song. Am Zool 31:318–328Google Scholar
  36. Leboucher G, Depraz V, Kreutzer M (1998) Male song stimulation of female reproduction in canaries: features relevant to sexual displays are not relevant to nest-building or egg-laying. Ethology 104:613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 208:4593–4598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller DB (1979) The acoustic basis of mate recognition by female zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Anim Behav 27:376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Møller AP (1991) Why mated songbirds sing so much—mate guarding and male announcement of mate fertility status. Am Nat 138:994–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Møller AP, Saino N, Taramino G, Galeotti P, Ferrario S (1998) Paternity and multiple signaling: effects of a secondary sexual character and song on paternity in the barn swallow. Am Nat 151:236–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 85:935–956PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Navara KJ, Hill GE, Mendonça MT (2006) Yolk androgen deposition as a compensatory strategy. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oberweger K, Goller F (2001) The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J Exp Biol 204:3379–3388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar Deepayan R, Team DC (2008) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3:1–89Google Scholar
  45. Rashotte ME, Sedunova EV, Johnson F, Pastukhov IF (2001) Influence of food and water availability on undirected singing and energetic status in adult male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Physiol Behav 74:533–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riebel K (2009) Song and female mate choice in zebra finches: a review. Adv Study Behav 40:197–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schielzeth H, Bolund E (2010) Patterns of conspecific brood parasitism in zebra finches. Anim Behav 79:1329–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schielzeth H, Bolund E, Kempenaers B, Forstmeier W (2011) Quantitative genetics and fitness consequences of neophilia in zebra finches. Behav Ecol 22:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Searcy WA, Andersson M (1986) Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:507–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K (1996) Song and female choice. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 454–473Google Scholar
  52. Sheldon BC (2000) Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 15:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Silcox AP, Evans SM (1982) Factors affecting the formation and maintenance of pair bonds in the zebra finch, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 30:1237–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slater PJB (2003) Fifty years of bird song research: a case study in animal behaviour. Anim Behav 65:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tchernichovski O, Schwabl H, Nottebohm F (1998) Context determines the sex appeal of male zebra finch song. Anim Behav 55:1003–1010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tomaszycki ML, Adkins-Regan E (2005) Experimental alteration of male song quality and output affects female mate choice and pair bond formation in zebra finches. Anim Behav 70:785–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Verzijden MN, Etman E, van Heijningen C, van der Linden M, ten Cate C (2007) Song discrimination learning in zebra finches induces highly divergent responses to novel songs. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward S, Speakman JR, Slater PJB (2003) The energy cost of song in the canary, Serinus canaria. Anim Behav 66:893–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward S, Lampe HM, Slater PJB (2004) Singing is not energetically demanding for pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 15:477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zann R (1996) The zebra finch—a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Bolund
    • 1
    • 2
  • Holger Schielzeth
    • 1
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Forstmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary GeneticsMax Planck Institute for OrnithologySeewiesenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Department of Evolutionary BiologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations