Advertisement

Does habitat structural complexity influence the frequency of extra-pair paternity in birds?

  • Carlos Biagolini-Jr.
  • David F. Westneat
  • Mercival R. Francisco
Review

Abstract

Several studies have suggested that vegetation structural complexity can influence the frequency of extra-pair copulations, especially by reducing mating-guarding efficiency. Here we investigate if habitat structural complexity affects broad patterns of extra-pair paternity (EPP) and extra-pair broods (proportion of nests presenting at least one extra-pair young—EPB), specifically testing the prediction that species living in habitats with denser vegetation would have a higher frequency of EPP or EPB. We reviewed studies reporting EPP and EPB levels and categorized structural complexity of vegetation for the study population into five habitat categories. Using both phylogenetic ANOVA and phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS), we found no significant effects in either EPP or EPB rates. Under the mating-guarding point of view, possible explanations for the lack of support are (i) trade-offs between the possibilities for females to escape from male surveillance and the difficulty to encounter neighbor extra-pair males by visual orientation in areas with dense vegetation; (ii) the predominance of passerine birds in most categories of vegetation complexity, which are small and agile, such that even less vegetated areas may allow extra-pair copulation to be concealed; (iii) environmental components other than vegetation, such as rocks and cliffs, also could provide concealment opportunities for extra-pair copulation; and (iv) the performance of predawn forays, when habitat complexity may play a weak role on guarding effectiveness. A macroecological understanding of EPP and EPB is a continuing challenge for understanding variation in avian mating systems. Our results contribute to improving the knowledge of the impact of habitat in sexual selection.

Significance statement

Although a vast literature on avian extra-pair paternity (EPP) and its causes exists, the influence of a number of environmental parameters remains poorly addressed. One such parameter is habitat structural complexity. Scattered pieces of evidence from single-species studies have supported the idea that in more complex habitats, i.e., dense vegetation, extra-pair copulation (EPC) is facilitated by concealment opportunities. Here we provide a broad review on studies reporting EPP and EPB (proportion of nests presenting at least one extra-pair young) levels, and we classified study sites into five habitat categories, which were then compared. After controlling for phylogenetic effect, we found no significant effect. Possible explanations for the nonsignificance under a mating-guard perspective can involve trade-offs between the possibilities for females to escape from social surveillance and the difficulty to encounter neighbor extra-pair mates, the availability of habitat components other than vegetation providing concealment for EPC, and the use of strategies such as predawn forays to avoid mate-guarding consequences. Our results further expand the role of habitat in avian sexual selection.

Keywords

Cuckoldry Extra-pair copulation Infidelity Social monogamy Mate system Review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Universidade Federal de São Carlos and the University of Kentucky for logistical support and to L.J. Revell, L. Harmon, and M. Alfaro for important discussions on the statistical methods applied here. CB received fellowships from Fundação do Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo—FAPESP (#2014/15456-2 and #2013/21209-5). We also especially thank two anonymous referees for comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement and ethical approval

As this is a review article, the statement on the welfare of animals is not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by Fundação do Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo—FAPESP (#2014/15456-2 and #2013/21209-5). FAPESP is a public foundation, funded by the taxpayers of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The grant proposals are peer-reviewed blindly by area researchers.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The datasets analysed during the current study are available in the Supplementary material.

Supplementary material

265_2017_2329_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 32.0 kb).
265_2017_2329_MOESM2_ESM.png (287 kb)
ESM 2 (PNG 286 kb).
265_2017_2329_MOESM3_ESM.docx (90 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 90 kb).
265_2017_2329_MOESM4_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 37 kb).

References

  1. Abouheif E (1999) A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol Ecol Res 1:895–909Google Scholar
  2. Bain GC, Hall ML, Mulder RA (2014) Territory configuration moderates the frequency of extra-group mating in superb fairy-wrens. Mol Ecol 23:5619–5627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds: life histories, mating systems and extinction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Black JM (1996) Partnerships in birds: the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler MA, King AA (2004) Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am Nat 164:683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charmantier A, Perret P (2004) Manipulation of nest-box density affects extra-pair paternity in a population of blue tits (Parus caeruleus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu M, Koenig WD, Godinez A, McIntosh CE, Fleischer RC (2002) Social and genetic monogamy in territorial and loosely colonial populations of Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens). Auk 119:770–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA (2016) The handbook of the birds of the world alive. Lynx editions, http://www.hbw.com
  10. Dias RI, Macedo RH (2011) Nest predation versus resources in a Neotropical passerine: constraints of the food limitation hypothesis. Ornis Fennica 88:30–39Google Scholar
  11. Double M, Cockburn A (2000) Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy-wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edinger BB (1988) Extra-pair courtship and copulation attempts in northern orioles. Condor 90:546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ericson PGP, Anderson CL, Britton T, Elzanowski A, Johansson US, Kallersjo M, Ohlson JI, Parsons TJ, Zuccon D, Mayr G (2006) Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biol Lett 2:543–547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Felsenstein J (1973) Maximum-likelihood estimation of evolutionary trees from continuous characters. Am J Hum Genet 25:471–492PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Garland T, Dickerman AW, Janis CM, Jones JA (1993) Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst Biol 42:265–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffith SC (2000) High fidelity on islands: a comparative study of extrapair paternity in passerine birds. Behav Ecol 11:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith SC, Stewart IRK, Dawson DA, Owens IPF, Burke T (1999) Contrasting levels of extra-pair paternity in mainland and island populations of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): is there an “island effect”? Biol J Linn Soc 68:303–316Google Scholar
  19. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackett S, Kimball RT, Reddy S et al (2008) Phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763–1768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harmon LJ, Weir JT, Brock CD, Glor RE, Challenger W (2008) GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24:129–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2012) The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491:444–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jombart T, Dray S (2010) Adephylo: exploratory analyses for the phylogenetic comparative method. Bioinformatics 26:1907–1909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Ligon JD (1999) The evolution of avian breeding systems. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Mays HL, Ritchison G (2004) The effect of vegetation density on male mate guarding and extra-territorial forays in the yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). Naturwissenschaften 91:195–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McKinnon L, Picotin M, Bolduc E, Juillet C, Bêty J (2012) Timing of breeding, peak food availability, and effects of mismatch on chick growth in birds nesting in the High Arctic. Can J Zool 90:961–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neudorf DLH (2004) Extrapair paternity in birds: understanding variation among species. Auk 121:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nyári ÁS, Benz BW, Jønsson KA, Fjeldså J, Moyle RG (2009) Phylogenetic relationships of fantails (Aves: Rhipiduridae). Zool Scr 38:553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pagel M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Paradis E (2014) An introduction to the phylogenetic comparative method. In: Garamszegi LZ (ed) Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology, 1st edn. Springer, New York, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  32. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2017) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. CRAN, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/nlme.pdf
  33. Quillfeldt P, Schmoll T, Peter H-U, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (2001) Genetic monogamy in Wilson’s storm-petrel. Auk 118:242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quillfeldt P, Masello JF, Segelbacher G (2012) Extra-pair paternity in seabirds: a review and case study of thin-billed prions Pachyptila belcheri. J Ornithol 153:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  36. Reding L (2015) Increased hatching success as a direct benefit of polyandry in birds. Evolution 69:264–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Revell LJ (2012) Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol 3:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rubolini D, Liker A, Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP, Saino N (2015) Using the BirdTree.org website to obtain robust phylogenies for avian comparative studies: a primer. Curr Zool 61:959–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherman PW, Morton ML (1988) Extra-pair fertilizations in mountain white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spottiswoode C, Møller AP (2004) Extrapair paternity, migration, and breeding synchrony in birds. Behav Ecol 15:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stewart SLM, Westneat DF, Ritchison G (2010) Extra-pair paternity in eastern bluebirds: effects of manipulated density and natural patterns of breeding synchrony. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stutchbury BJ, Morton ES (1995) The effect of breeding synchrony on extra-pair mating systems in songbirds. Behaviour 132:675–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tryjanowski P, Antczak M, Hromada M (2007) More secluded places for extra-pair copulations in the great grey shrike Lanius excubitor. Behaviour 144:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vatka E, Orell M, Rytkönen S (2011) Warming climate advances breeding and improves synchrony of food demand and food availability in a boreal passerine. Glob Change Biol 17:3002–3009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. West RJD (2014) The evolution of large brain size in birds is related to social, not genetic, monogamy. Biol J Linn Soc 111:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Westneat DF, Sherman PW (1997) Density and extra-pair fertilizations in birds: a comparative analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 34:365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Westneat DF, Sherman PW, Morton ML (1990) The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Curr Ornithol 7:331–369Google Scholar
  49. Wiersma P, Muñoz-Garcia A, Walker A, Williams JB (2007) Tropical birds have a slow pace of life. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:9340–9345CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Xiao H, Hu Y, Lang Z, Fang B, Guo W, Zhang Q, Pan X, Lu X (2016) How much do we know about the breeding biology of bird species in the world? J Avian Biol. doi: 10.1111/jav.00934
  51. Yuta T, Koizumi I (2016) Does nest predation risk affect the frequency of extra-pair paternity in a socially monogamous passerine? J Avian Biol 47:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Diversidade Biológica e ConservaçãoUniversidade Federal de São CarlosSorocabaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Center for Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de Ciências AmbientaisUniversidade Federal de São CarlosSorocabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations