Skip to main content
Log in

Least auklet ornaments: do they function as quality indicators?

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In the monogamous least auklet (Aethia pusilla, Alcidae) both males and females have three highly variable ornamental traits (facial plumes, a colourful bill and a knob-like bill ornament) and both sexes perform courtship displays. To assess whether mating preferences could be related to the expression of these ornaments, we performed model presentation experiments in which we varied the bill colour and the size of both the bill ornament and the facial plumes. Auklets reacted to models that had brighter red bills and accentuated facial plumes with more frequent sexual displays than to models with average bills and plumes. We conclude that these two ornamental traits are likely to be favoured by sexual selection through mating preferences. In general, however, ornaments were weak predictors of individual quality. Multiple regression indicated that all ornaments taken together explained a small (R 2 = 0.07) but significant proportion of the variability in adult body condition but only in a poor year for reproduction when the birds were in relatively poor body condition and a small proportion of the population bred successfully. The degree of ornamentation was also not related to timing of breeding, chick feeding rate or reproductive success and there was no relationship between adult survival and ornaments. We conclude, therefore, that least auklet ornaments are, at best, weak indicators of quality that may be the result of sexual selection operating only in years when breeding conditions are poor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alatalo RV, Höglund J, Lundberg A (1988) Patterns of variation in tail ornament size in birds. Biol J Linn Soc 34:363–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1982a) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1982b) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc 17:375–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard P (1990) Male tail length, sexual display intensity and female sexual response in a parasitic African finch. Anim Behav 39:652–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Bédard J, Sealy SG (1984) Moults and feather generations in the least, crested and parakeet auklets. J Zool 202:461–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead TR (1985) Extra-pair matings and mate-guarding in the common murre Uria aalge. Anim Behav 33:608–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Burley N (1981) The evolution of sexual indistinguishability. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW (eds) Natural selection and social behaviour: recent research and new theory. Chiron Press, New York, pp 121–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon WJ (1985) BMDP statistical software. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (1990a) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (1990b) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Abbott I, Schluter D, Curry RL, Abbott LK (1985) Variation in the size and shape of Darwin's finches. Biol J Linn Soc 25:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites. Science 218:384–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisler IL (1984) A quantitative model for the origin of mating preferences. Evolution 38:1283–1295

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood JS (1989) Sexual selection by the handicap mechanism. Evolution 43:1387–1397

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill GE (1990) Female house finches prefer colourful males: Sexual selection for a condition-dependent trait. Anim Behav 40: 563–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley JS (1914) The courtship habits of the great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus; with an addition to the theory of sexual selection. Proc Zool Soc Lond 35:491–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones IL (1990a) Plumage variability functions for status signalling in least auklets. Anim Behav 39:967–975

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones IL (1990b) Status signalling, sexual selection and the social signals of least auklets Aethia pusilla. Ph D dissertation, Queen's University, Kingston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones IL, Montgomerie RD (1991) Mating and re-mating of least auklets (Aethia pusilla) relative to ornamental traits. Behavioural Ecology 2:249–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones IL (1992) Colony attendance of least auklets Aethia pusilla at St. Paul Island, Alaska: implications for population monitoring. Condor, in press

  • Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ (1990) The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Kundtson EP, Byrd GV (1982) Breeding biology of crested, least and whiskered auklets at Buldir Island, Alaska. Condor 84:197–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favoured by sexual selection, Am Nat 124:309–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Nat Acad Sci 78:3721–3725

    Google Scholar 

  • McArdle BH (1988) The structural relationship: regression in biology. Can J Zool 66:2329–2339

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1988) Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in the monogamous swallow. Nature 332:640–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Piatt J, Roberts B, Lidster W, Wells J, HatchS (1990) Effects of human disturbance on breeding least and crested auklets at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Auk 107:342–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomiankowski AN (1988) The evolution of female mate preference for male genetic quality. Oxford Survey in Evol Biol 5:136–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Rising JD, Somers KM (1989) The measurement of overall body size in birds. Auk 106:666–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Roby DD, Brink KL (1986) Breeding biology of least auklets on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Condor 88:336–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith H, Montgomerie RD (1991) Sexual selection and the tail ornaments of North American barn swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:195–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithe FB (1975) Naturalist's colour guide. American Museum of Natural History, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer AM, Roseneau DG (1985) Copepod-based food webs: auklets and oceanography in the Bering Sea. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 21:229–237

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schantz T, Göransson G, Andersson G, Fröberg I, Grahn, Helgée M, Wittzell H (1989) Female choice selects for a viability-based male trait in pheasants. Nature 337:166–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd Edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Offprint requests to: R. Montgomerie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, I.L., Montgomerie, R. Least auklet ornaments: do they function as quality indicators?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30, 43–52 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00168593

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00168593

Keywords

Navigation