Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 213–217 | Cite as

Experimental and natural changes in the peacock's (Pavo cristatus) train can affect mating success

  • Marion Petrie
  • Tim Halliday


Petrie et al. (1991) demonstrated a correlation between the degree of elaboration of peacocks' trains and their mating success, and also showed that this correlation occurred because females preferred to mate with the male that had the most elaborate train of those sampled on the lek. Although these data suggest that female choice is responsible for non-random mating in this species, they do not conclusively show that train morphology is the cue that females respond to, because they do not rule out the possible influence of another unidentified variable which is correlated with train elaboration. This paper presents an experimental test of the importance of the peacock's train in determining male mating success. If the number or arrangement of eye-spots in the peacock's train influences mating success, then changing the number of eye-spots should change mating success. This prediction was tested in an experiment where the trains of male peafowl (Pavo cristatus) were manipulated by removing a number of eye-spots between mating seasons. Peacocks with eye-spots removed showed a significant decline in mating success between seasons compared with a control group. This result, together with the observational data, supports the hypothesis that the peacock's train has evolved, at least in part, as a result of female choice.

Key words

Pavo cristatus Female choice Male morphology Experimental manipulation Mating success 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alatalo RV, Höglund J, Lundberg A (1991) Lekking in the black grouse — a test of male viability. Nature 352:155–156Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820Google Scholar
  3. Andersson S (1992) Female preference for long tails in lekking Jackson's widowbirds: experimental evidence. Anim Behav 43:379–388Google Scholar
  4. Barnard P (1990) Male tail length, sexual display intensity and female sexual response in a parasitic African finch. Anim Behav 39:652–656Google Scholar
  5. Halliday TR (1990) Morphology and sexual selection. In: Atti VI Convegno Nazionale Associazione ‘essandro Ghigi’. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, pp 9–21Google Scholar
  6. Harvey PH, Bradbury JW (1991) Sexual selection. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwells, Oxford, pp 203–233Google Scholar
  7. Höglund J, Eriksson M, Lindell LE (1990) Females of the lek-breeding great snipeGallinago media prefer males with white tails. Anim Behav 40:23–32Google Scholar
  8. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38Google Scholar
  9. Manning IT (1987) The peacock's train and the age-dependency model of female choice. J World Pheasant Assoc 12:44–56Google Scholar
  10. Manning IT (1989) Age-advertisement and the evolution of the peacock's train. J Evol Biol 2:379–384Google Scholar
  11. Manning IT, Hartley MA (1991) Symmetry and ornamentation are correlated in the peacock's train. Anim Behav 42:1020–1021Google Scholar
  12. Møller AP (1988) Female mate choice selects for male tail ornament in the monogamous swallow. Nature 332:640–642Google Scholar
  13. Møller AP (1990) Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Anim Behav 40:1185–1187Google Scholar
  14. Møller AP (1992) Female swallow preference for symmetric male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238–240Google Scholar
  15. Møller AP (1993) Female preference for apparently symmetrical male sexual ornaments in the barn swallowHirundo rustica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:371–376Google Scholar
  16. Petrie M (1992) Peacocks with low mating success are more likely to suffer predation. Anim Behav 44:4585–4587Google Scholar
  17. Petrie M (1993) Do peacock's trains advertise age? J Evol Biol 6:443–448Google Scholar
  18. Petrie M, Halliday T, Sanders C (1991) Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim Behav 41:323–331Google Scholar
  19. Petrie M, Hall M, Halliday T, Budgey H, Pierpoint C (1992) Multiple mating in a lekking bird: why do peahens mate with more than one male and the same male more than once? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:349–358Google Scholar
  20. Reynolds JD, Gross MR (1990) Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230–243Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Petrie
    • 1
  • Tim Halliday
    • 1
  1. 1.Brain and Behaviour Research Group, Department of BiologyThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations