Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 285–288 | Cite as

Do bright colors at nests incur a cost due to predation?

  • David G. Haskell


Birds show much interspecific variation in the coloration and brightness of their plumage. I examine the hypothesis that selection due to predation on incubating birds and their nest contents can explain part of this diversity. First, I argue that rather than using absolute rates of nest predation to make predictions about the costs of conspicuous colours, we should measure experimentally whether increases in plumage conspicuousness elevate rates of nest predation. Second, I present experimental data investigating the cost of red and brown colour at ground and tree nests. These data provide the first evidence that bright colours do attract predators to nests and that, in addition, this cost varies according to the nesting site. Natural selection seems to most strongly oppose the evolution of conspicuous colours in ground-nesting birds.


predation natural selection sexual selection plumage coloration artificial nest 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, R.R. and Parker, G. (1979) The evolution of bird coloration.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 287, 63–130.Google Scholar
  2. Clayton, D.H., Pruett-Jones, S.G. and Lande, R. (1992) Reappraisal of the interspecific prediction of parasite-mediated sexual selection: opportunity knocks.J. Theor. Biol. 157, 95–108.Google Scholar
  3. Götmark, F. (1993) Conspicuous coloration in male birds is favored by predation in some species and disfavored in others.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 253, 143–6.Google Scholar
  4. Hamilton, W.D. and Zuk, M. (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites?Science 218, 384–7.Google Scholar
  5. Haskell, D.G. (1991) Bacteria mating preferences.Nature 352, 26.Google Scholar
  6. Hoglund, J. (1989) Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: a comparative analysis.Am. Nat. 134, 72–87.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, S.G. (1991) Effects of predation, parasites, and phylogeny on the evolution of bright coloration in North American male passerines.Evol. Ecol. 5, 52–62.Google Scholar
  8. Lande, R. and Arnold, S.J. (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters.Evolution 37, 1210–26.Google Scholar
  9. Martin, T.E. (1993) Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas.Am. Nat. 141, 897–913.Google Scholar
  10. Munsell Color Company, Inc. (1978)The Munsell Color Limit Cascade. Munsell Color, Baltimore, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Owens, I.P.F. and Bennett, P.M. (1994) Mortality costs of parental care and sexual dimorphism in birds.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 257, 1–8.Google Scholar
  12. Price, G.R. (1970) Selection and covariance.Nature 227, 520–1.Google Scholar
  13. Promislow, D.E.L., Montgomerie, R. and Martin, T.E. (1992). Mortality costs of sexual dimorphism in birds.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 250, 143–50.Google Scholar
  14. Read, A.F. and Harvey, P.H. (1989) Reassessment of comparative evidence for Hamilton and Zuk theory on the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics.Nature 339, 618–20.Google Scholar
  15. Shutler, D. and Weatherhead, P.J. (1990) Targets of sexual selection: song and plumage of wood warblers.Evolution 44, 1967–77.Google Scholar
  16. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1989)Statistical Methods (8th edn.) Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA., USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David G. Haskell
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Biological SciencesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations