Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 8, pp 1311–1321 | Cite as

Sequential polyandry through divorce and re-pairing in a cooperatively breeding bird reduces helper-offspring relatedness

  • Miyako H. Warrington
  • Lee Ann Rollins
  • Andrew F. Russell
  • Simon C. Griffith
Original Paper

Abstract

Polyandry is an important component of both sexual selection and kin structuring within cooperatively breeding species. A female may have multiple partners within a single reproductive attempt (simultaneous polyandry) or across multiple broods within and/or across years (sequential polyandry). Both types of polyandry confer a range of costs and benefits to individuals and alter the genetic structure of social groups over time. To date, many molecular studies of cooperative breeders have examined the evolution of cooperative breeding in relation to simultaneous polyandry. However, cooperatively breeding vertebrates are iteroparous, and thus sequential polyandry is also likely, but more rarely considered in this context. We examined sequential polyandry in a cooperatively breeding bird that has a low level of within-brood polyandry. Over a 5-year period (2006–2010), we monitored individual mating relationships using molecular markers in a population of individually marked apostlebirds (Struthidea cinerea). Divorce occurred between reproductive seasons in 17 % (8/48) of pairs and appeared to be female-driven. The level of sequential polyandry was also driven by the disappearance of males after breeding, and over 90 % of females, for whom we had suitable data, bred with multiple males over the period of study. This sequential polyandry significantly altered the relatedness of group members to the offspring in the nest. However, in about half of the cases, the second male was related (first- or second-order relative) to the first male of a sequentially polyandrous female and this alleviated the reduction in relatedness caused by polyandry. Our findings suggest that even in species with high within-brood parentage certainty, helper-offspring relatedness values can quickly erode through sequential polyandry.

Keywords

Within-group extra-group extrapair paternity Reproductive flexibility Cooperative breeding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Nichola Rahaini, Aliza Sager, Sophia Kehmeier, Claudia Wascher and a number of additional students and volunteers for assisting with field observations and data collection. MHW was supported by a Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship, SCG by an ARC QEII Fellowship and AFR by the Royal Society University Research Fellowship scheme.

Compliance with ethical standards

The work presented here complies with the current laws of the country in which it was conducted.

References

  1. Arnold KE, Owens IPF (1998) Cooperative breeding in birds: a comparative test of the life history hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:739–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck NR, Peakall R, Heinsohn R (2008) Social constraint and an absence of sex-biased dispersal drive fine-scale genetic structure in white-winged choughs. Mol Ecol 17:4346–4358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boomsma JJ (2007) Kin selection versus sexual selection: why the ends do not meet. Curr Biol 17:R673–R683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boomsma JJ (2009) Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:3191–3207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boomsma JJ (2013) Beyond promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Philos Trans R Soc B 368:20120050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botero CA, Rubenstein DR (2011) Fluctuating environments, sexual selection and the evolution of flexible mate choice in birds. PLoS ONE 7, e32311Google Scholar
  7. Browning LE, Patrick SC, Rollins LA, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012) Kin selection, not group augmentation, predicts helping in an obligate cooperatively breeding bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:3861–3869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cezilly F, Nager RG (1995) Comparative evidence for a positive association between divorce and extra-pair paternity in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman G (1998) The social life of the apostlebird Struthidea cinerea. Emu 98:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choudhury S (1995) Divorce in birds—a review of the hypotheses. Anim Behav 50:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockburn A (2003) Cooperative breeding in oscine passerines: does sociality inhibit speciation? Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2207–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Double MC (2003) Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 72:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornwallis CK, West SA, Davis KE, Griffin AS (2010) Promiscuity and the evolutionary transition to complex societies. Nature 466:969–974Google Scholar
  14. Daniels SJ, Walters JR (2000) Between-year breeding dispersal in red-cockaded woodpeckers: multiple causes and estimated cost. Ecology 81:2473–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhondt AA, Adriaensen F (1994) Causes and effects of divorce in the blue tit Parus caeruleus. J Anim Ecol 63:979–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn PO, Cockburn A (1998) Costs and benefits of extra-group paternity in superb fairy-wrens. Ornithol Monogr 49:147–161.Google Scholar
  17. Durrant KL, Hughes JM (2005) Differing rates of extra-group paternity between two populations of the Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:536–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Emlen ST (1990) White-fronted bee-eaters: helping in a colonially nesting species. In: Stacey PB, Koenig WD (eds) Cooperative breeding in birds: long-term studies of ecology and behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 487–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver. 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinformatics Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  20. Faaborg J, Parker PG, Delay L, Devries T, Bednarz JC, Paz SM, Naranjo J, Waite TA (1995) Confirmation of cooperative polyandry in the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forstmeier F, Nakagawa S, Griffith SC, Kempenaers B (2014) Female extra-pair mating: adaptation or genetic constraint? Trends Ecol Evol 29:456–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griesser M, Barnaby J, Schneider NA, Figenschau N, Wright J, Griffith SC, Kazem A, Russell AF (2009) Influence of winter ranging behaviour on the social organization of a cooperatively breeding bird species, the apostlebird. Ethology 115:888–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffiths R, Daan S, Dijkstra C (1996) Sex identification in birds using two CHD genes. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1251–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatchwell BJ, Russell AF, Ross DJ, Fowlie MK (2000) Divorce in cooperatively breeding long-tailed tits: a consequence of inbreeding avoidance? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:813–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatchwell BJ, Anderson C, Ross DJ, Fowlie MK, Blackwell PG (2001) Social organization of cooperatively breeding long-tailed tits: kinship and spatial dynamics. J Anim Ecol 70:820–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heinsohn R, Dunn P, Legge S, Double M (2000) Coalitions of relatives and reproductive skew in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeschke JM, Kokko H (2008) Mortality and other determinants of bird divorce rate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Vandenbroeck M, Burke T, Vanbroeckhoven C, Dhondt AA (1992) Extra-pair paternity caused by female preference in the blue tit. Nature 357:494–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingma SA, Hall ML, Arriero E, Peters A (2010) Multiple benefits of cooperative breeding in purple-crowned fairy-wrens: a consequence of fidelity? J Anim Ecol 79:757–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kingma SA, Hall ML, Peters A (2011) Multiple benefits drive helping behavior in a cooperatively breeding bird: an integrated analysis. Am Nat 177:486–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koenig WD, Pitelka FA, Carmen WJ, Mumme RL, Stanback MT (1992) The evolution of delayed dispersal in cooperative breeders. Q Rev Biol 67:111–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Komdeur J (1994) The effect of kinship on helping in the cooperative breeding Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Proc R Soc Lond B 256:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konovalov DA, Manning C, Henshaw MT (2004) KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol Ecol Notes 4:779–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lukas D, Clutton-Brock T (2012) Cooperative breeding and monogamy in mammalian societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2151–2156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marzluff JM, Woolfenden GE, Fitzpatrick JW, Balda RP (1996) Breeding partnerships of two new World Jays. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds: the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 138–161Google Scholar
  37. McDonald PG, Wright J (2011) Bell miner provisioning calls are more similar among relatives and are used by helpers at the nest to bias their effort towards kin. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:3403–3411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morton SR, Smith DMS, Dickman CR et al (2011) A fresh framework for the ecology of arid Australia. J Arid Environ 75:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 16 Oct 2014
  40. Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T (2003) Altruism and infidelity among warblers. Nature 422:580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rollins LA, Holleley CE, Wright J, Russell AF, Griffith SC (2010) Isolation and characterization of 12 polymorphic tetranucleotide microsatellite loci in the apostlebird (Struthidea cinerea). Conserv Genet Resour 2:229–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rollins LA, Browning LE, Holleley CE, Savage JL, Russell AF, Griffith SC (2012) Building genetic networks using relatedness information: a novel approach for the estimation of dispersal and characterization of group structure in social animals. Mol Ecol 21:1727–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP’ 007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell AF, Hatchwell BJ (2001) Experimental evidence for kin-biased helping in a cooperatively breeding vertebrate. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2169–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell E, Rowley I (1996) Partnerships in promiscuous splendid fairy-wrens. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds: the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 162–176Google Scholar
  46. Walters JR, 1990. Red-cockaded woodpeckers : a 'primitive' cooperative breeder. In: Stacey PBKWD, editor. Cooperative breeding in birds: long-term studies of ecology and behaviour Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. p. 67-101.Google Scholar
  47. Wang JL (2006) Informativeness of genetic markers for pairwise relationship and relatedness inference. Theor Popul Biol 70:300–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warrington MH, Rollins LA, Raihani NJ, Russell AF, Griffith SC (2013) Genetic monogamy despite variable ecological conditions and social environment in the cooperatively breeding apostlebird. Ecol Evol 3:4669–4682PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams DA (2004) Female control of reproductive skew in cooperatively breeding brown jays (Cyanocorax morio). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woxvold IA (2004) Breeding ecology and group dynamics of the apostlebird. Aust J Zool 52:561–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woxvold IA, Magrath MJL (2004) Predation events at an apostlebird nest. Corella 28:22–23Google Scholar
  52. Woxvold IA, Magrath MJL (2005) Helping enhances multiple components of reproductive success in the cooperatively breeding apostlebird. J Anim Ecol 74:1039–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woxvold IA, Mulder RA (2008) Mixed mating strategies in cooperatively breeding apostlebirds Struthidea cinerea. J Avian Biol 39:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Woxvold IA, Adcock GJ, Mulder RA (2006a) Fine-scale genetic structure and dispersal in cooperatively breeding apostlebirds. Mol Ecol 15:3139–3146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Woxvold IA, Mulder RA, Magrath MJL (2006b) Contributions to care vary with age, sex, breeding status and group size in the cooperatively breeding apostlebird. Anim Behav 72:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yomtov Y, McCleery R, Purchase D (1992) The survival rates of Australian passerines. Ibis 134:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miyako H. Warrington
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lee Ann Rollins
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew F. Russell
    • 4
  • Simon C. Griffith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Natural Resources InstituteUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Integrative EcologyDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  4. 4.Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK

Personalised recommendations