Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 5, pp 733–742 | Cite as

Individual and environmental determinants of reproductive success in male tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor)

  • Andréanne Lessard
  • Audrey Bourret
  • Marc Bélisle
  • Fanie Pelletier
  • Dany Garant
Original Paper

Abstract

Evaluating the contribution of individual and environmental determinants of reproductive success is essential to improve our understanding of sexual selection. In socially monogamous bird species with high rates of extrapair paternity, traits or environmental contexts affecting the number of within-pair young (WPY) produced by males can differ from those affecting the number of extrapair young fathered (EPY). Here, we use a 4-year dataset collected in contrasted environments to assess the factors affecting male reproductive success in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), a species showing high levels of extrapair paternity. Our analyses revealed that the number of WPY was higher under better environmental conditions, while the number of EPY was mainly related to male characteristics. Males nesting in more intensive agricultural areas had fewer WPY produced and a lower reproductive success. Also, males breeding earlier in the season had more WPY. The presence of parasites reduced males’ reproductive success, mainly by reducing the number of EPY. The influence of male phenotype varied according to population density: Tarsus length variation had a greater effect on reproductive success at low population density than at high density, while wing length was also positively related to the number of EPY, more so at high than at low density. Altogether, our results suggest a complex interplay between individual and environmental determinants of reproductive success and imply that sexual selection dynamics varies depending on environmental contexts.

Keywords

Birds Environmental variability Individual heterogeneity Paternity assignment Reproductive success Sexual selection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the 40 farm owners who provided access to their lands. We also wish to thank all graduate students and field and laboratory assistants who have contributed in gathering data in our system over the years. We also thank Melissa Hughes and two anonymous reviewers for the comments on a previous version of this manuscript. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) discovery grants to D.G., M.B., and F.P., by a strategic project research grant to D.G. and M.B. and by the Canada Research Chair program to F.P. and M.B.. A.B. was supported by a postgraduate NSERC scholarship.

Ethical standards

Animals were captured and handled in compliance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care, under the approval of the Université de Sherbrooke Animal Ethics Committee (protocol number: DG2010-01-Université de Sherbrooke).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2014_1686_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (326 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 325 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. Åkesson M, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2007) Genetic and phenotypic associations in morphological traits: a long term study of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus. J Avian Biol 38:58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38:709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baeta R, Bélisle M, Garant D (2012a) Importance of breeding season and maternal investment in studies of sex-ratio adjustment: a case study using tree swallows. Biol Lett 8:401–404PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baeta R, Bélisle M, Garant D (2012b) Agricultural intensification exacerbates female-biased primary brood sex-ratio in tree swallows. Landscape Ecol 27:1395–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barber CA, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1996) The high frequency of extra-pair paternity in tree swallows is not an artifact of nestboxes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbosa A, Merino S, De Lope F, Møller AP (2002) Effects of feather lice on flight behavior of male barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Auk 119:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H (2005) Environmental conditions and breeding experience affect costs of reproduction in Blue Petrels. Ecology 86:682–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2012) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999–0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package = lme4
  11. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Bitton P-P, O'Brien EL, Dawson RD (2007) Plumage brightness and age predict extrapair fertilization success of male tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Anim Behav 74:1777–1784Google Scholar
  13. Brown CR, Brown MB, Rannala B (1995) Ectoparasites reduce long-term survival of their avian host. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:313–319Google Scholar
  14. Canadian Wildlife Service (2004) Occupation du sol à partir des images classifiées Landsat-7, Sud du Québec, 1999–2003. Environnement Canada, région du Québec, Québec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Canal D, Potti J, Dávila JA (2011) Male phenotype predicts extra-pair paternity in pied flycatchers. Behaviour 148:691–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Canal D, Jovani R, Potti J (2012) Male decisions or female accessibility? Spatiotemporal patterns of extra pair paternity in a songbird. Behav Ecol 23:1146–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cleasby IR, Nakagawa S (2012) The influence of male age on within-pair and extra-pair paternity in passerines. Ibis 154:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clutton-Brock T, Sheldon BC (2010) Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol 25:562–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conover DO, Schultz ET (1995) Phenotypic similarity and the evolutionary significance of countergradient variation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:248–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conrad KF, Johnston PV, Crossman C, Kempenaers B, Robertson RJ, Wheelwright NT, Boag PT (2001) High levels of extra-pair paternity in an isolated, low-density, island population of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Mol Ecol 10:1301–1308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Costantini D, Møller AP (2009) Does immune response cause oxidative stress in birds? A meta-analysis. Comp Biochem Physiol 153:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crawley MJ (2007) The R Book. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crowe SA, Kleven O, Delmore KE, Laskemoen T, Nocera JJ, Lifjeld JT, Robertson RJ (2009) Paternity assurance through frequent copulations in a wild passerine with intense sperm competition. Anim Behav 77:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Demas GE (2004) The energetics of immunity: a neuroendocrine link between energy balance and immune function. Horm Behav 45:173–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Di Giulio M, Edwards PJ, Meister E (2001) Enhancing insect diversity in agricultural grasslands: the roles of management and landscape structure. J Appl Ecol 38:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2005) Radio-tracking of female Tree Swallows prior to egg-laying. J Field Ornithol 76:259–263Google Scholar
  27. Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2007) Search costs influence the spatial distribution, but not the level, of extra-pair mating in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunn PO, Robertson RJ, Michaud-Freeman D, Boag PT (1994a) Extra-pair paternity in tree swallows: why do females mate with more than one male? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dunn PO, Whittingham LA, Lifjeld JT, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1994b) Effects of breeding density, synchrony, and experience on extrapair paternity in tree swallows. Behav Ecol 5:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dyrcz A, Wink M, Kruszewicz A, Leisler B (2005) Male reproductive success is correlated with blood parasite levels and body condition in the promiscuous aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola). Auk 122:558–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forbes MRL (1993) Parasitism and host reproductive effort. Oikos 67:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Forsman AM, Vogel LA, Sakaluk SK, Johnson BG, Masters BS, Johnson LS, Thompson CF (2008) Female house wrens (Troglodytes aedon) increase the size, but not immunocompetence, of their offspring through extra-pair mating. Mol Ecol 17:3697–3706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fridolfsson A, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J Avian Biol 30:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garant D, Kruuk LEB, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2007) The effects of environmental heterogeneity on multivariate selection on reproductive traits in female great tits. Evolution 61:1546–1559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ghilain A, Bélisle M (2008) Breeding success of tree swallows along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Ecol Appl 18:1140–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 7:1071–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harper DGC (1999) Feather mites, pectoral muscle condition, wing length and plumage coloration of passerines. Anim Behav 58:553–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64Google 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 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Kempenaers B, Everding S, Bishop C, Boag P, Robertson RJ (2001) Extra-pair paternity and the reproductive role of male floaters in the tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kose M, Møller AP (1999) Sexual selection, feather breakage and parasites: the importance of white spots in the tail of the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leffelaar D, Robertson RJ (1984) Do male tree swallows guard their mates? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehtonen PK, Primmer CR, Laaksonen T (2009) Different traits affect gain of extrapair paternity and loss of paternity in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 77:1103–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lifjeld JT, Robertson RJ (1992) Female control of extra-pair fertilization in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lifjeld JT, Dunn PO, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1993) Extra-pair paternity in monogamous tree swallows. Anim Behav 45:213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mayer C, Pasinelli G (2013) New support for an old hypothesis: density affects extra-pair paternity. Ecol Evol 3:694–705Google Scholar
  49. Møller AP (1990a) Effects of parasitism by a haematophagous mite on reproduction in the barn swallow. Ecology 71:2345–2357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Møller AP (1990b) Parasites and sexual selection: current status of the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis. J Evol Biol 3:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paquette SR, Garant D, Pelletier F, Bélisle M (2013) Seasonal patterns in tree swallow prey (Diptera) abundance are affected by agricultural intensification. Ecol Appl 23:122–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porlier M, Bélisle M, Garant D (2009) Non-random distribution of individual genetic diversity along an environmental gradient. Philos T Roy Soc B 364:1543–1554Google Scholar
  55. Porlier M, Charmantier A, Bourgault P, Perret P, Blondel J, Garant D (2012) Variation in phenotypic plasticity and selection patterns in blue tit breeding time: between- and within-population comparisons. J Anim Ecol 81:1041–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Proctor H, Owens I (2000) Mites and birds: diversity, parasitism and coevolution. Trends Ecol Evol 15:358–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  58. Robinson MR, Sander van Doorn G, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A (2012) Environment-dependent selection on mate choice in a natural population of birds. Ecol Lett 15:611–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ryder TB, Fleischer RC, Shriver WG, Marra PP (2012) The ecological–evolutionary interplay: density-dependent sexual selection in a migratory songbird. Ecol Evol 2:976–987PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saino N, Primmer CR, Ellegren H, Møller AP (1999) Breeding synchrony and paternity in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB, Merilä J (2003) Natural selection and inheritance of breeding time and clutch size in the collared flycatcher. Evolution 57:406–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stutchbury BJ, Morton ES (1995) The effect of breeding synchrony on extra-pair mating systems in songbirds. Behaviour 132:675–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stutchbury BJ, Robertson RJ (1988) Within-season and age-related patterns of reproductive performance in female tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Can J Zool 66:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Teplitsky C, Mouawad NG, Balbontin J, De Lope F, Møller AP (2011) Quantitative genetics of migration syndromes: a study of two barn swallow populations. J Evol Biol 24:2025–2039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thusius KJ, Dunn PO, Peterson KA, Whittingham LA (2001) Extrapair paternity is influenced by breeding synchrony and density in the common yellowthroat. Behav Ecol 12:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1995) Pair and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westneat DF, Sherman PW (1997) Density and extra-pair fertilizations in birds: a comparative analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:365–396Google Scholar
  69. Whittingham LA, Dunn PO, Stapleton MK (2006) Repeatability of extra-pair mating in tree swallows. Mol Ecol 15:841–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wiggins DA (1989) Heritability of body size in cross-fostered tree swallow broods. Evolution 43:1808–1811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Winkler DW, Hallinger KK, Ardia DR, Robertson RJ, Stutchbury BJ, Cohen RR (2011) Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). The Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/. Accessed 01 Oct 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andréanne Lessard
    • 1
  • Audrey Bourret
    • 1
  • Marc Bélisle
    • 1
  • Fanie Pelletier
    • 1
  • Dany Garant
    • 1
  1. 1.Département de biologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations