Advertisement

Association between extra-pair paternity and nestling sex and condition in the barn swallow

  • Alessandra Costanzo
  • Diego Rubolini
  • Roberto Ambrosini
  • Manuela Caprioli
  • Emanuele Gatti
  • Andrea Romano
  • Marco Parolini
  • Luca Gianfranceschi
  • Nicola Saino
Original Article

Abstract

Parents should differentially allocate resources to the production of offspring of either sex depending on their expected fitness return. In sexually promiscuous females, offspring sex ratio should be affected by the sexual attractiveness of biological fathers because sons, but not daughters, will benefit from inheriting genes for sexual attractiveness. Females may acquire benefits for the offspring if the extra-pair male is of superior genetic quality as compared to the social mate, if it carries compatible genes or genes that enhance offspring genetic diversity. If sexually selected ornaments reflect male quality, extra-pair offspring should be more frequently males and of higher quality compared to their half-siblings. Furthermore, the probability of extra-pair offspring to be male should increase with an increasing difference in sexual ornamentation between the extra-pair and the social mate. In this study, we tested if barn swallow offspring sex ratio depends on paternity and on sexual ornamentation of the extra-pair father, and whether paternity predicts offspring phenotypic quality. The results partially fulfilled our prediction. We did not provide support for the hypothesis of a differential sex allocation to the production of male offspring by promiscuous females, both at the individual and at the within-brood level. Moreover, the difference in the ornamentation of the extra-pair and the social male did not affect the sex ratio of individual offspring. However, in accordance with the good genes and the genetic compatibility hypotheses, extra-pair offspring were of superior quality as compared to their half-sibling, in terms of body size and feather growth.

Significance statement

In sexually promiscuous species, females should differentially allocate resources to the production of offspring of either sex depending on paternity or sexual ornamentation of the social or the extra-pair mate. Moreover, extra-pair offspring may be of superior quality compared to their within-pair half-siblings. In the present study of the barn swallow, paternity and the differences in sexual ornamentation between the social and the extra-pair mate did not affect offspring sex ratio. In addition, according to the good genes and the genetic compatibility hypotheses, we found that extra-pair offspring are of superior quality as compared to their within-pair siblings. Despite we failed to provide support to the sex allocation theory, the present study emphasizes the importance of “negative” results to better estimate the generality of the occurrence of adaptive sex allocation strategies in the context of sexual selection studies.

Keywords

Barn swallow Offspring quality Paternity Promiscuity Sex allocation Sex ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the farm owners who allowed us to collect information on barn swallows in their cowsheds and houses and to several field assistants that greatly contributed to data collection. We are also grateful to the Editor and the anonymous referees for their comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was authorized by Funzione Caccia, Pesca, Parchi e GEV, Corpo Polizia Provinciale, Provincia di Novara (Settore Agricoltura, Determina n. 55/2015, issued on January 20, 2015). The study was carried out under ringing permit 0665 released by the Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, which issues all the relevant permissions required. The study was conducted in private lands, and land owners gave us the permission to access their farms. All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Nestling and adult barn swallows were kept warm in cloth bags and in a safe position. At each measurement session each individual was handled for a few minutes. Blood (approximately 80 μl) was sampled by puncturing of the brachial vein and the puncturing site was disinfected afterwards. Individuals did not show obvious negative consequences of handling.

References

  1. Abroe B, Garvin JC, Pedersen MC, Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2007) Brood sex ratios are related to male size but not to attractiveness in common yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas). Auk 124:176–184.  https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038 (2007)124[176,bsrart]2.0.co;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazzi G, Ambrosini R, Caprioli M, Costanzo A, Liechti F, Gatti E, Gianfranceschi L, Podofillini S, Romano A, Romano M, Scandolara C, Saino N, Rubolini D (2015) Clock gene polymorphism and scheduling of migration: a geolocator study of the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. Sci Rep 5:12443.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12443 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell SC, Owens IPF, Lord AM (2014) Quality of breeding territory mediates the influence of paternal quality on sex ratio bias in a free-living bird population. Behav Ecol 25:352–358.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Booksmythe I, Mautz B, Davis J, Nakagawa S, Jennions MD (2017) Facultative adjustment of the offspring sex ratio and male attractiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Rev 92:108–134.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12220 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Booksmythe I, Schwanz LE, Kokko H (2013) The complex interplay of sex allocation and sexual selection. Evolution 67:673–678.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouwman KR, Burke T, Komdeur J (2006) How female reed buntings benefit from extra-pair mating behaviour: testing hypotheses through pattern of paternity in sequential brood. Mol Ecol 15:2589–2600.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02955.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers EK, Munclinger P, Bures S, Kucerova L, Nadvornik P, Krist M (2013) Cross-fostering eggs reveals that female collared flycatchers adjust clutch sex ratios according to parental ability to invest in offspring. Mol Ecol 22:215–228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12106 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooker MG, Rowley I, Adams M, Baverstock PR (1990) Promiscuity—an inbreeding avoidance mechanism in a socially monogamous species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:191–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172086 Google Scholar
  10. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockburn A, Double MC (2008) Cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wrens show no facultative manipulation of offspring sex ratio despite plausible benefits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:681–688.  https://doi.org/10.1086/693532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanzo A, Ambrosini R, Caprioli M, Gatti E, Parolini M, Canova L, Rubolini D, Romano A, Gianfranceschi L, Saino N (2017) Lifetime reproductive success, selection on lifespan and multiple sexual ornaments in male European barn swallows. Evolution 71:2457–2468.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13312 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietrich-Bischoff V, Schmoll T, Winkel W, Krackow S, Lubjuhn T (2006) Extra-pair paternity, offspring mortality and offspring sex ratio in the socially monogamous coal tit (Parus ater). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:563–571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0201-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreiss A, Richard M, Moyen F, White J, Møller AP, Danchin E (2005) Sex ratio and male sexual characters in a population of blue tits, Parus caeruleus. Behav Ecol 17:13–19.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellegren H, Gustafsson L, Sheldon BC (1996) Sex ratio adjustment in relation to paternal attractiveness in a wild bird population. Phil Trans R Soc B 93:11723–11728Google Scholar
  16. Fawcett TW, Kuijper B, Pen I, Weissing FJ (2007) Should attractive males have more sons? Behav Ecol 18:71–80.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fawcett TW, Kuijper B, Weissing FJ, Pen I (2011) Sex-ratio control erodes sexual selection, revealing evolutionary feedback from adaptive plasticity. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:15925–15930.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105721108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman-Gallant CR, Wheelwright NT, Meiklejohn KE, Sollecito SV (2006) Genetic similarity, extrapair paternity, and offspring quality in savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Behav Ecol 17:952–958.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garvin JC, Abroe B, Pedersen MC, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2006) Immune response of nestling warblers varies with extra-pair paternity and temperature. Mol Ecol 15:3833–3840.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03042.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham EB, Caro SP, Sockman KW (2011) Change in offspring sex ratio over a very short season in Lincoln’s sparrows: the potential role of bill development. J Field Ornithol 82:44–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2010.00306.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffin AS, Sheldon BC, West SA (2005) Cooperative breeders adjust offspring sex ratios to produce helpful helpers. Am Nat 166:628–632.  https://doi.org/10.1086/491662 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hasselquist D, Kempenaers B (2002) Parental care and brood sex-ratio manipulation in birds. Phil Trans R Soc B 357:363–372.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0924 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296–299.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35018556 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson LS, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK, Neuhäuser M, Johnson BG, Soukup SS, Forsythe SJ, Masters BS (2009) Extra-pair young in house wren broods are more likely to be male than female. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2285–2289.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Dhondt AA (1997) Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav Ecol 8:481–492.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/8.5.481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01540.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Komdeur J, Pen I (2002) Adaptive sex allocation in birds: the complexities of linking theory and practice. Phil Trans R Soc B 357:373–380.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0927 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kraaijeveld K, Ming MA, Komdeur J, Mulder RA (2007) Offspring sex ratios in relation to mutual ornamentation and extra-pair paternity in the black swan Cygnus atratus. Ibis 149:79–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00606.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee JW, Hatchwell BJ (2011) Do females adjust brood sex ratio according to males’ genetic structures in a gregarious passerine, the vinous-throated parrotbill Paradoxornis webbianus? J Avian Biol 42:447–453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-048X.2011.05417.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leech DI, Hartley IR, Stewart IRK, Griffith SC, Burke T (2001) No effect of parental quality or extrapair paternity on brood sex ratio in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus). Behav Ecol 12:674–680.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.6.674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lessells CM (2002) Parentally biased favouritism: why should parents specialize in caring for different offspring? Phil Trans R Soc B 357:381–403.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0928 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Møller AP, Ninni P (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection: a meta-analysis of paternity studies in birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:345–358.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neto JM, Hansson B, Hasselquist D (2011) Sex allocation in Savi’s warblers Locustella luscinioides: multiple factors affect seasonal trends in brood sex ratios. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:297–304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1046-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pen I, Weissing FJ (2000) Sexual selection and the sex ratio: an ESS analysis. Selection 1:111–121.  https://doi.org/10.1556/Select.1.2000.1-3.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramsay SM, Mennill DJ, Otter KA, Ratcliffe LM, Boag PT (2003) Sex allocation in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla). J Avian Biol 34:134–139.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2003.03056.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romano A, Ambrosini R, Caprioli M, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Saino N (2012) Secondary sex ratio covaries with demographic trends and ecological conditions in the barn swallow. Evol Ecol 26:1041–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-011-9543-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Romano A, Costanzo A, Rubolini D, Saino N, Møller AP (2017a) Geographical and seasonal variation in the intensity of sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 92:1582–1600.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12297 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Romano A, Romano M, Caprioli M, Costanzo A, Parolini M, Rubolini D, Saino N (2015a) Sex allocation according to multiple sexually dimorphic traits of both parents in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). J Evol Biol 28:1234–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12650 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Romano A, Rubolini D, Caprioli M, Musitelli F, Ambrosini R, Saino N (2015b) Parent-absent begging in barn swallow broods: causes of individual variation and effects on sibling interactions and food allocation. Evol Biol 42:432–442.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9336-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romano A, Saino N, Møller AP (2017b) Viability and expression of sexual ornaments in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica: a meta-analysis. J Evol Biol 30:1929–1935.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13151 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Saino N, Ambrosini R, Martinelli R, Calza S, Møller AP, Pilastro A (2002) Offspring sexual dimorphism and sex-allocation in relation to parental age and paternal ornamentation in the barn swallow. Mol Ecol 11:1533–1544.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01542.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Saino N, Ambrosini R, Rubolini D, Romano M, Caprioli M, Romano A, Parolini M (2018) Carry-over effects of brood size on morphology, reproduction, and lifespan in barn swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2446-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saino N, Calza S, Møller AP (1997) Immunocompetence of nestling barn swallows in relation to brood size and parental effort. J Anim Ecol 66:827–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saino N, Ellegren H, Møller AP (1999) No evidence for adjustment of sex allocation in relation to paternal ornamentation and paternity in barn swallows. Mol Ecol 8:399–406.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1999.00574.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saino N, Martinelli R, Romano M (2008) Ecological and phenological covariates of offspring sex ratio in barn swallows. Evol Ecol 22:659–674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9189-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saino N, Martinelli R, Romano M, Møller AP (2003) High heritable variation of a male secondary sexual character revealed by extra-pair fertilization in the barn swallow. Ital J Zool 70:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saino N, Møller AP (1994) Secondary sexual characters, parasites and testosterone in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. Anim Behav 48:1325–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saino N, Romano M, Ambrosini R, Rubolini D, Boncoraglio G, Caprioli M, Romano A (2012) Longevity and lifetime reproductive success of barn swallow offspring are predicted by their hatching date and phenotypic quality. J Anim Ecol 81:1004–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.01989.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwarzova L, Simek J, Coppack T, Tryjanowski P (2008) Male-biased sex of extra pair young in the socially monogamous red-backed shrike Lanius collurio. Acta Ornithol 43:235–239.  https://doi.org/10.3161/000164508X395379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sheldon BC, Ellegren H (1996) Offspring sex and paternity in the collared flycatcher. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1017–1021.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00964.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Trivers RL, Willard DE (1973) Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 179:90–92.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4068.90 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 52–95Google Scholar
  57. Uller T (2006) Sex-specific sibling interactions and offspring fitness in vertebrates: patterns and implications for maternal sex ratios. Biol Rev 81:207–217.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006962 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Westerdahl H, Bensch S, Hansson B, Hasselquist D, von Schantz T (1997) Sex ratio variation among broods of great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus). Mol Ecol 6:543–548.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00217.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Westneat DF, Clark AB, Rambo KC (1995) Within-brood patterns of paternity and parental behavior in red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:349–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00174140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Westneat DF, Sherman PW, Morton ML (1990) The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Curr Ornithol 7:331–369Google Scholar
  61. Wilk T, Cichoń M, Wolff K (2008) Lack of evidence for improved immune response of extra-pair nestlings in collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. J Avian Biol 39:546–552.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2008.04390.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yasui Y (1998) The ‘genetic benefits’ of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01383-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations