Advertisement

Extra-pair paternity patterns in European barn swallows Hirundo rustica are best explained by male and female age rather than male ornamentation

  • Romana Michálková
  • Oldřich Tomášek
  • Marie Adámková
  • Jakub Kreisinger
  • Tomáš Albrecht
Original Article

Abstract

Adaptive explanations for the evolution of extra-pair paternity (EPP) in birds often assume cuckolding males to be better-ornamented than cuckolded males. Several studies have confirmed that either male sexual ornamentation is associated with EPP or that phenotypes of cuckolded and cuckolding males differ. Expression of male ornamentation may change with age; however, a recent meta-analysis has identified age itself as an important factor that differed in cuckolding and cuckolded males. The age of social female partner may also affect EPP, though this has received little attention. Here, by using detailed data on age of individual barn swallows (Hirundo rustica rustica), we identified age as the major predictor of male and female promiscuity. Our results revealed that, whereas a male’s ability to obtain an extra-pair mate increased linearly with age, the only predictor of the probability of a male being cuckolded was the age of his social partner, with older females engaging more frequently in EPP. In contrast, male ornamentation was not significantly related to EPP pattern. Tarsus length was the sole significant phenotypic trait in comparison between cuckolding and cuckolded males. Our data provide little support for the hypothesis that extra-pair mate choice in our barn swallow population was ornament driven. This may indicate either a non-adaptive scenario for EPP, for example with older males better able to coerce females into copulation, or EPP mating based on other than absolute mate-choice criteria associated with the expression of male ornamentation.

Significance statement

We analysed patterns of extra-pair paternity (EPP) in barn swallows. Derived from observation of 160 nests, our results appear to differ from the findings of some previous studies that identified ornamental traits as being associated with extra-pair and within-pair paternity (WPP) in this iconic model taxon of sexual selection. In particular, tail streamer length had no detectable association with WPP or a male’s ability to obtain an extra-pair partner. Pairwise comparisons of cuckolded and cuckolding males, involving 76 mixed paternity nests, also supported the hypothesis that male ornamentation does not play a role in determining EPP patterns in the focal barn swallow population. When statistically controlled for clutch initiation date, the probability of obtaining an extra-pair partner only increased with increasing age of males, while WPP was only associated with the age of their female social partners. Our data provide little support for the hypothesis that extra-pair mate choice in our barn swallow population is ornament driven and indicated that age, rather than ornaments, would be a better predictor of paternity.

Keywords

Extra-pair fertilisations Within-pair paternity EPP Sexual ornamentation Sexual selection Tail streamer length 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Cepák, A. Hund, J. Hubbard, P. Munclinger and A. Petrželková for help in the field. Kevin Roche provided valuable comments on the manuscript and proofread the final text. This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of the Kotrba family at Hamr farm, the Kraus family at Šaloun farm and the Pulec family. We would also like to thank the Associate Editor and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the paper.

Author contributions

TA conceived and designed the study; MA and OT undertook ornament analysis; RM, TA, OT, MA and JK performed the fieldwork; RM and JK conducted paternity analysis. TA and RM carried out the statistical analysis; RM and TA wrote the manuscript. All co-authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript and gave approval for its publication.

Funding

This research was funded through Project GA15-11782S and 19-22538S of the Czech Science Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

This study complied with all applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines on the use of animals. All protocols were non-invasive and adhered to the laws and guidelines of the Czech Republic (Czech Research Permit Numbers 6628/2008-10001). All protocols were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committees at the Czech Academy of Sciences (041/2011) and Charles University in Prague (4789/2008-30).

Supplementary material

265_2019_2725_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

References

  1. Akçay E, Roughgarden J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of the genetic benefits. Evol Ecol Res 9:855–868Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht T, Kreisinger J, Pialek J (2006) The strength of direct selection against female promiscuity is associated with rates of extrapair fertilizations in socially monogamous songbirds. Am Nat 167:739–744PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht T, Schnitzer J, Kreisinger J, Exnerova A, Bryja J, Munclinger P (2007) Extra pair paternity and the opportunity for sexual selection in long-distant migratory passerines. Behav Ecol 18:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M (2005) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. Am Nat 165:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balbontín J, Hermosell IG, Marzal A, Reviriego M, De Lope F, Møller AP (2007) Age-related change in breeding performance in early life is associated with an increase in competence in the migratory barn swallow Hirundo rustica. J Anim Ecol 76:915–925PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Balbontín J, Møller AP, Hermosell IG, Marzal A, Reviriego M (2012) Geographical variation in reproductive ageing patterns and life-history strategy of a short-lived passerine bird. J Evol Biol 25:2298–2309PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartoń K (2016) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.15.6, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  8. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR (2010) How stupid not to have thought of that: post-copulatory sexual selection. J Zool 281:78–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bitton PP, O’Brien EL, Dawson RD (2007) Plumage brightness and age predict extrapair fertilization success of male tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Anim Behav 74:1777–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouwman KM, Komdeur J (2005) Old female reed buntings (Emberiza schoeniclus) increase extra-pair paternity in their broods when mated to young males. Behaviour 142:1449–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouwman KM, van Dijk RE, Wijmenga JJ, Komdeur J (2007) Older male reed buntings are more successful at gaining extrapair fertilizations. Anim Behav 73:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowers EK, Forsman AM, Masters BS, Johnson BGP, Johnson LS, Sakaluk SK, Thompson CF (2015) Increased extra-pair paternity in broods of aging males and enhanced recruitment of extra-pair young in a migratory bird. Evolution 69:2533–2541PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks R, Kemp DJ (2001) Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol Evol 16:308–313PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryja J, Patzenhauerova H, Albrecht T, Mosansky L, Stanko M, Stopka P (2008) Varying levels of female promiscuity in four Apodemus mice species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Canal D, Potti J, Davila JA (2011) Male phenotype predicts extra-pair paternity in pied flycatchers. Behaviour 148:691–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cichon M (2003) Does prior breeding experience improve reproductive success in collared flycatcher females? Oecologia 134:78–81PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman SW, Jones AG (2011) Patterns of multiple paternity and maternity in fishes. Biol J Linn Soc 103:735–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Costanzo A, Ambrosini R, Capriolo M, Gatti E, Parolini M, Romano A, Rubolini D, Gianfranceschi L, Saino N (2017a) Extrapair fertilizations vary with female traits and pair compositions, besides male attractiveness, in barn swallows. Anim Behav 134:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costanzo A, Ambrosini R, Caprioli M, Gatti E, Parolini M, Canova L, Rubolini D, Romano A, Gianfranceschi L, Saino N (2017b) Lifetime reproductive success, selection on lifespan, and multiple sexual ornaments in male European barn swallows. Evolution 71:2457–2468PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Dakin EE, Avise JC (2004) Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity 93:504–509PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Decker KL, Conway CJ, Fontaine JJ (2012) Nest predation, food, and female age explain seasonal declines in clutch size. Evol Ecol 26:683–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dietrich V, Schmoll T, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (2004) Pair identity—an important factor concerning variation in extra-pair paternity in the coal tit (Parus ater). Behaviour 141:817–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edme A, Munclinger P, Krist M (2016) Female collared flycatchers choose neighbouring and older extra-pair partners from the pool of males around their nests. J Avian Biol 47:552–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eliassen S, Kokko H (2008) Current analyses do not resolve whether extra-pair paternity is male or female driven. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1795–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Endler JA, Mielke PW (2005) Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biol J Linn Soc 86:405–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Forstmeier W, Nakagawa S, Griffith SC, Kempenaers B (2014) Female extra-pair mating: adaptation or genetic constraint? Trends Ecol Evol 29:456–464PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman-Gallant CR, Taff CC, Morin DF, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA, Tsang SM (2010) Sexual selection, multiple male ornaments, and age- and condition-dependent signalling in the common yellowthroat. Evolution 64:1007–1017PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Froy H, Phillips RA, Wood AG, Nussey DH, Lewis S (2013) Age-related variation in reproductive traits in the wandering albatross: evidence for terminal improvement following senescence. Ecol Lett 16:642–649PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldsmith TH (1990) Optimization, constraint, and history in the evolution of eyes. Q Rev Biol 65:281–322PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Grunst AS, Grunst ML (2014) Multiple sexual pigments, assortative social pairing, and genetic paternity in the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1451–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hasegawa M, Arai E, Watanabe M, Nakamura M (2010) Mating advantage of multiple male ornaments in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica gutturalis. Ornithol Sci 9:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hasegawa M, Arai E, Watanabe M, Nakamura M (2012) High incubation investment of females paired to attractive males in barn swallows. Ornithol Sci 11:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hsu YH, Schroeder J, Winney I, Burke T, Nakagawa S (2015) Are extra-pair males different from cuckolded males? A case study and a meta-analytic examination. Mol Ecol 24:1558–1571PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Hsu YH, Simons MJP, Schroeder J, Girndt A, Winney IS, Burke T, Nakagawa S (2017) Age-dependent trajectories differ between within-pair and extra-pair paternity success. J Evol Biol 30:951–959PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Hubbard JK, Jenkins BR, Safran RJ (2015) Quantitative genetics of plumage color: lifetime effects of early nest environment on a colorful sexual signal. Ecol Evol 5:3436–3449PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Kempenaers B (2007) Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv Study Behav 37:189–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kempenaers B, Verheyen G, Vandenbroeck M, Burke T, Van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt A (1992) Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Dhondt AA (1997) Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav Ecol 8:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kempenaers B, Congdon B, Boag P, Robertson RJ (1999) Extrapair paternity and egg hatchability in tree swallows: evidence for the genetic compatibility hypothesis? Behav Ecol 10:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kleven O, Jacobsen F, Izadnegahdar R, Robertson RJ, Lifjeld JT (2006a) Male tail streamer length predicts fertilization success in the North American barn swallow (Hirundo rustica erythrogaster). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:412–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kleven O, Marthinsen G, Lifjeld JT (2006b) Male extraterritorial forays, age and paternity in the socially monogamous reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus). J Ornithol 147:468–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kokko H (1998) Good genes, old age and life-history trade-offs. Evol Ecol 12:739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kose M, Mand R, Møller AP (1999) Sexual selection for white tail spots in the barn swallow in relation to habitat choice by feather lice. Anim Behav 58:1201–1205PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kreisinger J, Čížková D, Kropáčková L, Albrecht T (2015) Cloacal microbiome structure in a long-distance migratory bird assessed using deep 16sRNA pyrosequencing. PLoS One 9:e0137401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kruuk LEB, Merilä J, Sheldon BC (2001) Phenotypic selection on a heritable size trait revisited. Am Nat 158:557–571PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Lifjeld JT, Kleven O, Jacobsen F, McGraw KJ, Safran RJ, Robertson RJ (2011) Age before beauty? Relationships between fertilization success and age-dependent ornaments in barn swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1687–1697PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lubjuhn T, Gerken T, Bruen J, Schmoll T (2007) Yearling male great tits, Parus major, suffer more strongly from cuckoldry than older males. Zoology 110:387–397PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Lyu N, Servedio MR, Sun YH (2018) Nonadaptive female pursuit of extrapair copulations can evolve through hitchhiking. Ecol Evol 8:3685–3692PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton PP, Doucet SM, Shawkey MD (2013) pavo: an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol 4:906–913Google Scholar
  55. Manning JT (1985) Choosy females and correlates of male age. J Theor Biol 116:349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mauck RA, Huntington CE, Grubb TC (2004) Age-specific reproductive success: evidence for the selection hypothesis. Evolution 58:880–885PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Mays HL, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554–559PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Mays HL, Albrecht T, Liu M, Hill GE (2008) Female choice for genetic complementarity in birds: a review. Genetica 134:147–158PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  60. Møller AP (2017) Experimental manipulation of size and shape of tail spots and sexual selection in barn swallows. Curr Zool 63:569–572PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Møller AP, de Lope F (1999) Senescence in a short-lived migratory bird: age-dependent morphology, migration, reproduction and parasitism. J Anim Ecol 68:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Møller AP, Brohede J, Cuervo JJ, de Lope F, Primmer C (2003) Extrapair paternity in relation to sexual ornamentation, arrival date, and condition in a migratory bird. Behav Ecol 14:707–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Møller AP, Balbontín J, Cuervo JJ, Hermosell IG, de Lope F (2009a) Individual differences in protandry, sexual selection, and fitness. Behav Ecol 20:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Møller AP, Mousseau TA, Rudolfsen G, Balbontín J, Marzal A, Hermosell I, de Lope F (2009b) Senescent sperm performance in old male birds. J Evol Biol 22:334–344PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Moreno J, Martinez JG, Gonzalez-Braojos S, Cantarero A, Ruiz-de-Castaneda R, Precioso M, Lopez-Arrabe J (2015) Extra-pair paternity declines with female age and wing length in the pied flycatcher. Ethology 121:501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ninni P (2003) Carotenoid signals in barn swallows. PhD thesis, Université Pierrre et Marie Curie, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Brien EL, Dawson RD (2011) Plumage color and food availability affect male reproductive success in a socially monogamous bird. Behav Ecol 22:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Petrželková A, Michálková R, Albrechtová J, Cepák J, Honza M, Kreisinger J, Munclinger P, Soudková M, Tomášek O, Albrecht T (2015) Brood parasitism and quasi-parasitism in the European barn swallow Hirundo rustica rustica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1405–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ramos AG, Nunziata SO, Lance SL, Rodriguez C, Faircloth BC, Gowaty PA, Drummond H (2014) Interactive effects of male and female age on extra-pair paternity in a socially monogamous seabird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1603–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Richardson DS, Burke T (1999) Extra-pair paternity in relation to male age in Bullock’s orioles. Mol Ecol 8:2115–2126PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Romano A, Costanzo A, Rubolini D, Saino N, Møller AP (2017) Geographical and seasonal variation in the intensity of sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica:a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 92:1582–1600PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Safran RJ, McGraw KJ (2004) Plumage coloration, not length or symmetry of tail-streamers, is a sexually selected trait in North American barn swallows. Behav Ecol 15:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Safran RJ, Neuman CR, McGraw KJ, Lovette IJ (2005) Dynamic paternity allocation as a function of male plumage color in barn swallows. Science 309:2210–2212PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Safran RJ, Vortman Y, Jenkins BR, Hubbard JK, Wilkins MR, Bradley RJ, Lotem A (2016) The maintenance of phenotypic divergence through sexual selection: an experimental study in barn swallows Hirundo rustica. Evolution 70:2074–2084PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Saino N, Primmer CR, Ellegren H, Møller AP (1997) An experimental study of paternity and tail ornamentation in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Evolution 51:562–570PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Saino N, Romano M, Rubolini D, Ambrosini R, Caprioli M, Milzani A, Costanzo A, Colombo G, Canova L, Wakamatsu K (2013) Viability is associated with melanin-based coloration in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). PLoS One 8:e60426PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Scordato ESC, Safran RJ (2014) Geographic variation in sexual selection and implications for speciation in the barn swallow. Avian Res 5:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stoddard MC, Prum RO (2008) Evolution of avian plumage color in a tetrahedral color sdpace: a phylogenetic analysis of New World buntings. Am Nat 171:755–776PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Stoffel MA, Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2017) rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1639–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stutchbury BJM, Piper WH, Neudorf DL, Tarof SA, Rhymer JM, Fuller G, Fleischer RC (1997) Correlates of extra-pair fertilization success in hooded warblers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Turner A (2006) The barn swallow. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Multiple paternity in reptiles: patterns and processes. Mol Ecol 17:2566–2580PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Vitousek MN, Tomášek O, Albrecht T, Wilkins MR, Safran RJ (2016) Signal traits and oxidative stress: a comparative study across populations with divergent signals. Front Ecol Evol 4:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vortman Y, Lotem A, Dor R, Lovette IJ, Safran RJ (2011) The sexual signals of the East-Mediterranean barn swallow: a different swallow tale. Behav Ecol 22:1344–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wang JL (2004) Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 166:1963–1979PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Webster MS, Pruett-Jones S, Westneat DF, Arnold SJ (1995) Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49:1147–1157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. Webster MS, Tarvin KA, Tuttle EM, Pruett-Jones S (2007) Promiscuity drives sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird. Evolution 61:2205–2211PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2010) Fitness benefits of polyandry for experienced females. Mol Ecol 19:2328–2335PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) Protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Vertebrate BiologyCzech Academy of SciencesBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Botany and ZoologyMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations