acta ethologica

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 89–97 | Cite as

Male ornamentation and within-pair paternity are not associated with male provisioning rates in scarlet rosefinches Carpodacus erythrinus

  • Jan Schnitzer
  • Alice Exnerová
  • Radka Poláková
  • Michal Vinkler
  • Oldřich Tomášek
  • Pavel Munclinger
  • Tomáš Albrecht
Original Article

Abstract

As proposed by the ‘good parent model’ for evolution of secondary male ornamentation, secondary ornaments may signal male provisioning rates and, therefore, direct benefit to females. On the other hand, male parental care intensity can potentially be affected by the occurrence of extra-pair offspring in its nest. According to ‘parental investment theory’, males that lose paternity in their nests should reduce their parental care. In this study, we analyse potential relationships between intensity of parental care, male ornamentation, the occurrence of extra-pair paternity and male extra-pair fertilisation success in the scarlet rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus. Our results based on 50 observed nests indicate no effect of paternity loss on the rate of food provisioning to nestlings in scarlet rosefinches. Simultaneously, we found no evidence for an association between male ornamentation and male provisioning rates. The only male trait associated with provisioning was the ability to sire extra-pair offspring. Our data indicate that direct selection against female promiscuity is weak or absent in rosefinches.

Keywords

Carotenoid-based ornamentation Extra-pair paternity Feeding effort Parental care 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lubor Červa, Jaroslav Jelínek, Martin Lundák and Františk Zicha for the help in the field and Kevin Roche for helpful comments on the manuscript. This study was supported by the Grant Agency of Charles University (project 191/2004/B-Bio), the Czech Science Foundation (project GACR P506/12/2472), the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (project MSMT no. 0021620828), the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (project nos. AV0Z60930519 and IAA600930608) and project SVV-2013-267201. TA, PM and JS were partially supported by Research Centrum Project LC06073. The authors thank the staff of the Šumava Mountains National Park.

References

  1. Albrecht T (2004) Edge effect in wetland-arable land boundary determines nesting success of scarlet rosefinches (Carpodacus erythrinus) in the Czech Republic. Auk 121:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht T, Kreisinger J, Piálek J (2006) The strength of direct selection against female promiscuity is associated with rates of extrapair fertilizations in socially monogamous songbirds. Am Nat 167:739–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht T, Schnitzer J, Kreisinger J, Exnerová A, Bryja J, Munclinger P (2007) Extrapair paternity and the opportunity for sexual selection in long-distant migratory passerines. Behav Ecol 18:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albrecht T, Vinkler M, Schnitzer J, Poláková R, Munclinger P, Bryja J (2009) Extra-pair fertilizations contribute to selection on secondary male ornamentation in a socially monogamous passerine. J Evol Biol 22:2020–2030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson S, Prager M (2006) Quantifying colors. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration, vol I. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 41–89Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Badyaev A, Hill G, Dunn P, Glen J (2001) Plumage color as a composite trait: developmental and functional integration of sexual ornamentation. Am Nat 158:221–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balenger SL, Johnson LS, Brubaker JL, Ostlind E (2007) Parental effort in relation to structural plumage coloration in the mountain bluebird (Sialia curucoides). Ethology 113:838–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR (1982) Timing and duration of mate guarding in Magpies, Pica-pica. Anim Behav 30:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkhead TR (2010) How stupid not to have thought of that: post-copulatory sexual selection. J Zool 281:78–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Björklund M (1990) Mate choice is not important for female reproductive success in the common rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus). Auk 107:35–44Google Scholar
  13. Bouwman KM, Lessells C, Komdeur J (2005) Male reed buntings do not adjust parental effort in relation to extrapair paternity. Behav Ecol 21:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Burley N (1988) The differential allocation hypothesis—an experimental test. Am Nat 132:611–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Butler MW, Toomey MB, McGraw KJ (2011) How many color metrics do we need? Evaluating how different color-scoring procedures explain carotenoid pigment content in avian bare-part and plumage ornaments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock T (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Bennett AT, Church SC, Hart NS, Hunt S (2000) Ultraviolet vision in birds. Adv Stud Behav 29:159–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dixon AR, O’Malley SLC, Burke T (1994) Parental investment inversely related to degree of extra-pair paternity in the reed bunting. Nature 371:698–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duckworth RA, Badyaev AV, Parlow AF (2003) Elaborated ornamented males avoid costly parental care in the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus): a proximate perspective. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ewen JG, Armstrong DP (2000) Male provisioning is negatively correlated with attempted extrapair copulation frequency in the stitchbird (or hihi). Anim Behav 60:429–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitze PS, Richner H (2002) Differential effects of a parasite on ornamental structures based on melanins and carotenoids. Behav Ecol 13:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fossøy F, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT (2008) Multiple genetic benefits of female promiscuity in a socially monogamous passerine. Evolution 62:494–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia-Vigon E, Veiga JP, Cordero PJ (2009) Male feeding rate extrapair paternity in the facultatively polygynous spotless starling. Anim Behav 78:1335–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extrapair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gustafsson L, Sutherland WJ (1988) The costs of reproduction in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Nature 335:813–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heywood JS (1989) Sexual selection by the handicap mechanism. Evolution 43:1387–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill EG (1990) Female house finches prefer colourful males: sexual selection for a condition dependent trait. Anim Behav 40:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hill GE (2002) A red bird in a brown bag: the function and evolution of colourful plumage in the house finch. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoelzer GA (1989) The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav 38:1067–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Houston AI, Székely T, McNamara J (2005) Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol Evol 20:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jawor JJ, Breitwisch R (2006) Is mate provisioning predicted by ornamentation? A test with northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis). Ethology 112:888–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelly NB, Alonzo SH (2009) Will male advertisement be a reliable indicator of parental care, if offspring survival depends on male care? Proc R Soc Lond B 276:3175–3183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kempenaers B, Lanctot RB, Robertson RJ (1998) Certainty of paternity and paternal investment in eastern bluebirds and tree swallows. Anim Behav 55:845–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ (1990) The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kokko H (1998) Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1871–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kokko H, Morrell LJ (2005) Mate quarding, male attractiveness, and paternity under social monogamy. Behav Ecol 16:724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee S, Choi J, Jablonski P, Choe J (2010) Parental provisioning in response to natural variation of brood size in the black-billed magpie (Pica pica): video analysis of behaviors in the nests. Pol J Ecol 58:553–562Google Scholar
  43. Lessells K (1994) Evolutionary biology—baby bunting in paternity probe. Nature 371:655–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Magrath MJL, Komdeur J (2003) Is male care compromised by additional mating opportunity? Trends Ecol Evol 18:424–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matysioková B, Remeš V (2013) Faithful females receive more help: the extent of male parental care during incubation in relation to extra-paternity in songbirds. J Evol Biol 26:155–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1993) Certainty of paternity covaries with paternal care in birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Møller AP (2000) Male parental care, male reproductive success, and extrapair paternity. Behav Ecol 11:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Møller AP, Cuervo JJ (2000) The evolution of paternity and parental care in birds. Behav Ecol 11:472–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Montgomerie R (2006) Analyzing colors. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration, vol I. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 90–147Google Scholar
  51. Mota PG, Hoi-Leitner M (2003) Intense extrapair behaviour in a semicolonial passerine does not result in extrapair fertilizations. Anim Behav 66:1019–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nolan PM, Stoehr AM, Hill GE, McGraw KJ (2001) The number of provisioning visits by house finches predicts the mass of food delivered. Condor 103:851–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nur N (1984) Feeding frequencies of nestling blue tits (Parus caeruleus): costs, benefits and model of optimal feeding frequency. Oecologia 65:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson KA, Thusius KJ, Whittigham LA, Dunn PO (2001) Allocation of male parental care in relation to paternity within and among broods of the common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). Ethology 107:573–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Poláková R, Vyskočilová M, Martin JF, Mays HL, Hill GE, Bryja J, Albrecht T (2007) A multiplex set of microsatellite markers for the scarlet rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus). Mol Ecol Notes 7:1375–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Préault M, Chastel O, Cézilly F, Faivre B (2005) Male bill colour and age are associated with parental abilities and breeding performance in blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Promerová M, Vinkler M, Bryja J, Poláková R, Schnitzer J, Munclinger P, Albrecht T (2011) Occurrence of extra-pair paternity is connected to social male’s MHC-variability in the scarlet rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus. J Avian Biol 42:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Development Core Team R (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  59. Romero-Diaz C, Richner H, Granado-Lorencio F, Tschirren B, Fitze PS (2013) Independent sources of condition dependency and multiple pathways determine a composite trait: lessons from carotenoid-based plumage colouration. J Evol Biol 26:635–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Safran RJ, Adelman JS, McGraw KJ, Hau M (2008) Sexual signal exaggeration affects physiological state in male barn swallows. Current Biol 18:R461–R462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Senar JC, Escobar D (2002) Carotenoid derived plumage coloration in the siskin Carduelis spinus is related to foraging ability. Avian Sci 2:19–24Google Scholar
  62. Senar JC, Quesada J (2006) Absolute and relative signals: a comparison between melanin-and carotenoid-based patches. Behaviour 143:589–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sheldon BC, Rasanen K, Dias PC (1997) Certainty of paternity and parental effort in the collared flycatcher. Behav Ecol 8:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smiseth PT, Örnborg J, Andersson S, Amundsen T (2001) Is male plumage reflectance correlated with parental care in bluethroats? Behav Ecol 12:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stjernberg T (1979) Breeding biology and population dynamics of the scarlet rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus. Acta Zool Fenn 157:1–88Google Scholar
  66. Sundberg J, Larsson C (1994) Male coloration as an indicator of parental quality in the yelowhammer, Emberiza citrinella. Anim Behav 48:885–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Surmacki A (2008) Preen waxes do not protect carotenoid plumage from bleaching by sunlight. Ibis 150:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Cambell BG (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  69. Tschirren B, Fitze P, Richner H (2003) Proximate mechanisms of variation in the carotenoid-based plumage coloration of nestling great tits (Parus major L.). J Evol Biol 16:91–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vinkler M, Schnitzer J, Munclinger P, Albrecht T (2012) Phytohaemagglutinin skin-swelling test in scarlet rosefinch males: low-quality birds respond more strongly. Anim Behav 83:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates and conflict. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the cost of reproduction and refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Witte K (1995) The differential–allocation hypothesis: does the evidence support it? Evolution 49:1289–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zelano B, Edwards SV (2002) A Mhc component to kin recognition and mate choice in birds: prediction, progress, and prospects. Am Nat 16:S225–S237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ISPA 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Schnitzer
    • 1
  • Alice Exnerová
    • 1
  • Radka Poláková
    • 2
  • Michal Vinkler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oldřich Tomášek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pavel Munclinger
    • 1
  • Tomáš Albrecht
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Vertebrate Biology, v.v.i.Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations