Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 217–235 | Cite as

Covariation of sexual dichromatism and plumage colours in lekking and non-lekking birds: A comparative analysis

  • ROBERT Bleiweiss
Article

Abstract

The extreme polygyny expressed by male lekking birds leads to the expectation that sexual dimorphism should be greater in lekkers than related non-lekkers. However, evidence for this association is weak, and many lekkers are actually monomorphic in size and plumage. To better understand the kinds of plumages associated with lekking, I characterized plumage variation for combinations of sexual dichromatism and colourfulness-and-conspicuousness (COCO) among lekking and related non-lekking birds. Compared in this way, the plumages of lekkers and non-lekkers differ dramatically for both sexes. Correlations between sexual dichromatism and COCO for phylogenetically independent contrasts are significant for male lekkers (positive) and female non-lekkers (negative), but not for female lekkers or male non-lekkers. Moreover, the total number of character–state combinations, and multivariate measures of variability, are greater in non-lekkers than lekkers.The characteristic plumages of lekkers (‘duller monochromatic’, ‘brighter dichromatic’ and intermediate between these extremes) comprise just a subset of those observed among non-lekkers, and exclude extremely ‘dull dichromatic’ and extremely ‘bright monochromatic’ plumages. I suggest that predation, and foraging behaviours compatible with lekking, may restrict plumage variation among lekkers. Thus ecological rather than overt sexual characteristics may explain monomorphism in birds under intense mate competition, as well as the paradox of strong female mate preferences on leks, where males appear to contribute only sperm to female reproductive efforts.

breeding system independent contrasts lek natural selection plumage sexual selection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, S.J. (1983) Sexual selection: The interface of theory and empiricism. In Mate Choice (P. Bateson, ed.), pp. 67–107. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Balmford, A. (1991) Mate choice on leks. TREE 6, 274–276.Google Scholar
  4. Bleiweiss, R. (1983) Variation and evolution in some Andean hummingbird genera. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Bleiweiss, R. (1985) Iridescent polychromatism in a female hummingbird: Is it related to feeding strategies? Auk 102, 701–713.Google Scholar
  6. Bleiweiss, R. (1992a) Widespread polychromatism in female sunangel hummingbirds (Heliangelus: Trochilidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 45, 291–314.Google Scholar
  7. Bleiweiss, R. (1992b) Reversed plumage ontogeny in a female hummingbird: Implications for the evolution of iridescent colors and sexual dichromatism. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 47, 183–195.Google Scholar
  8. Bleiweiss, R. (1994) Behavioural and evolutionary consequences of UV reflectance by the gorgets of polychromatic sunangel hummingbirds. Animal Behav. 48, 978–981.Google Scholar
  9. Bradbury, J.W. (1981) The evolution of leks. In Natural Selection and Social Behavior: Research and New Theory (R.D. Alexander and D.W. Tinkle, eds), pp. 138–169. Chiron Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Bradbury, J.W. and Gibson, R.M. (1983) Leks and mate choice. In Mate Choice (P. Bateson, ed.), pp. 109–138. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Bradbury, J.W. and Vehrencamp, S.L. (1977) Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats. III. Mating systems. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 1–17.Google Scholar
  12. Burkhardt, D. (1989) UV-vision: A bird's eye view of feathers. J. Comp. Physiol. A 164, 787–796.Google Scholar
  13. Butcher, G.S. and Rohwer, S. (1989) The evolution of conspicuous and distinctive coloration for communication in birds. In Current Ornithology (D.M. Power, ed.), pp. 51–108. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, London.Google Scholar
  15. Dickerman, A.W., Jones, J.A. and Garland, T., Jr (1993) Phenotypic Diversity Analysis Program, Version 1.1. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  16. Endler, J.A. (1978) A predator's view of animal color patters. Evol. Biol. 11, 319–364Google Scholar
  17. Endler, J.A. (1980) Natural selection on color pattern in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34, 76–91.Google Scholar
  18. Feinsinger, P. and Colwell, R.K. (1978) Community organization among neotropical nectar-feeding birds. Am. Zool. 18, 779–795.Google Scholar
  19. Felsenstein, J. (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125, 1–15.Google Scholar
  20. Felsenstein, J. (1993) PHYLIP. Phylogenetic inference package and documentation, Version 3.4. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, R.A. (1958) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Fox, D.L. (1976) Animal Biochromes and Structural Colors. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Garland, T., Jr, Harvey, P.H. and Ives, A.R. (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41, 18–32.Google Scholar
  24. Garland, T., Jr, Dickerman, A.W., Janis, C.M. and Jones, J.A. (1993) Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42, 265–292.Google Scholar
  25. Gill, F.B. (1990) Ornithology. W.H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Grafen, A. (1989) The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 326, 119–157.Google Scholar
  27. Harvey, P.H. and Pagel, M.D. (1991) The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Hill, G.E. (1990) Female house finches prefer colourful males: Sexual selection for a condition-dependent trait. Animal Behav. 40, 563–572.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, G.E. (1992) Proximate basis of variation in carotenoid pigmentation in male house finches. Auk 109, 1–12.Google Scholar
  30. Höglund, J. (1989) Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: A comparative analysis. Am. Nat. 134, 72–87.Google Scholar
  31. Höglund, J. and Alatalo, R.V. (1995) Leks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  32. Höglund, J. and Lundberg, A. (1987) Sexual selection in a monomorphic lek-breeding bird: Correlates of male mating success in the great snipe Gallinago media. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 211–216.Google Scholar
  33. Höglund, J. and Sillén-Tullberg, B. (1994) Does lekking promote the evolution of male-biased size dimorphism in birds? On the use of comparative approaches. Am. Nat. 144, 881–889.Google Scholar
  34. Höglund, J., Eriksson, M. and Lindell, L.E. (1990) Females of the lek-breeding great snipe, Gallinago media, prefer males with white tails. Animal Behav. 40, 23–32.Google Scholar
  35. Hudon, J. and Brush, A.H. (1992) Identification of carotenoid pigments in birds. Meth. Enzymol. 213, 312–321.Google Scholar
  36. Johnsgard, P.A. (1981) The Plovers, Sandpipers, and Snipes of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
  37. Johnsgard, P.A. (1983) The Grouse of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
  38. Johnsgard, P.A. (1994) Arena Birds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Kirkpatrick, M. (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36, 1–12.Google Scholar
  40. Kirkpatrick, M. and Ryan, M.J. (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33–38.Google Scholar
  41. Lande, R. (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34, 292–305.Google Scholar
  42. Lande, R. (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721–3725.Google Scholar
  43. Maddison, W.P. and Maddison, D.R. (1992) MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, Version 3.0. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  44. Myers, J.P. (1979) Leks, sex, and buff-breasted sandpipers. Am. Birds 33, 823–825.Google Scholar
  45. Oakes, E.J. (1992) Lekking and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds: Comparative approaches. Am. Nat. 140, 665–684.Google Scholar
  46. Parrish, J.W., Ptacek, J.A. and Will, K.L. (1984) The detection of near-ultraviolet light by nonmigratory and migratory birds. Auk 101, 53–58.Google Scholar
  47. Payne, R.B. (1984) Sexual selection, lek and arena behavior, and sexual size dimorphism in birds. Ornithol. Monogr. 33. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Purvis, A. and Garland, T., Jr (1994) Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst. Biol. 42, 569–575.Google Scholar
  49. Ralls, K. (1977) Sexual dimorphism in mammals: Avian models and unanswered questions. Am. Nat. 111, 917–938.Google Scholar
  50. Ralph, C.L. (1969) The control of color in birds. Am. Zool. 9, 521–530.Google Scholar
  51. Ridgely, R.S. and Tudor, G. (1994) The Birds of South America, Vol. II. The Suboscine Passerines. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  52. Robbins, M.B. (1985) Social organization of the Band-tailed Manakin (Pipra fasciicauda). Condor 87, 449–456.Google Scholar
  53. Rossotti, H. (1983) Colour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  54. SAS Institute Inc. (1988) SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  55. Savalli, U.M. (1995) The evolution of bird colouration and plumage elaboration. Curr. Ornithol. 12, 141–190.Google Scholar
  56. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1967) Statistical Methods. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  57. Snow, D.W. (1982) The Cotingas. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  58. Snow, D.W. and Snow, B.K. (1979) The ocher-bellied flycatcher and the evolution of lek behavior. Condor 81, 286–292.Google Scholar
  59. Stiles, F.G. and Wolf, L.L. (1979) Ecology and evolution of lek mating behavior in the long-tailed hermit hummingbird. Ornithol. Monogr. 27, American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  60. Swofford, D.L. (1985) PAUP, Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsomony, Program and Documentation, Version 2.4.2. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  61. Trail, P.W. (1990) Why should lek-breeders be monomorphic? Evolution 44, 1837–1852.Google Scholar
  62. Verner, J. and Willson, M.F. (1969) Mating systems, sexual dimorphism and the role of male North American passerine birds in the nesting cycle. Ornithol. Monogr. 9. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  63. West-Eberhardt, M.J. (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Quart. Rev. Biol. 58, 155–183.Google Scholar
  64. Wiley, R.H. (1991) Lekking in birds and mammals: Behavioral and evolutionary issues. Adv. Study Behav. 20, 201–291.Google Scholar
  65. Willis, E.O. (1972) The behavior of spotted antbirds. Ornithol. Monogr. 10. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  66. Willis, E.O., Wechsler, D. and Willis, Y.O. (1978) On behavior and nesting of McConnell's flycatcher (Pipromorpha mcconnelli): Does female rejection lead to male promiscuity? Auk 95, 1–9.Google Scholar
  67. Wilson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  68. Wolf, L.L. (1969) Female territoriality in a tropical hummingbird. Auk 86, 490–504.Google Scholar
  69. Wolf, L.L. and Stiles, F.G. (1970) Evolution of pair-cooperation in a tropical hummingbird. Evolution 24, 759–773.Google Scholar
  70. Bleiweiss, R., Kirsch J.A.W. and Matheus, J.C. (1994) DNA-DNA hybridization evidence for subfamily structure among hummingbirds. Auk 111, 8–19.Google Scholar
  71. Forshaw, J.M. (1978) Parrots of the World. David and Charles, Newton Abbot, Devon.Google Scholar
  72. Gill, F.B. and Gerwin, J.A. (1989) Protein relationships among hermit hummingbirds. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 141, 409–421.Google Scholar
  73. Johnsgard, P.A. (1981) The Plovers, Sandpipers, and Snipes of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
  74. Johnsgard, P.A. (1983) The Grouse of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
  75. Johnsgard, P.A. (1991) Bustards, Hemipodes, and Sandgrouse. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  76. Keith, S., Urban, E.K. and Fry, C.H. (1992) The Birds of Africa, Vol. IV. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  77. Payne, R.B. (1973) Behavior, mimetic songs and song dialects, and relationship of the parasitic indigobirds (Vidua) of Africa. Ornithol. Monogr. 11. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  78. Prum, R.O. (1990) Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of display behavior in the Neotropical manakins (Aves: Piopridae). Ethology 84, 202–231.Google Scholar
  79. Prum, R.O. and Lanyon, W.E. (1989) Monophyly and phylogeny of the Schiffornis group (Tyrannoidea). Condor 91, 444–461.Google Scholar
  80. Sibley, C.G. and Ahlquist, J.E. (1991) Phylogeny and Classification of Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  81. Snow, D.W. (1982) The Cotingas. British Museum of Natural History, London.Google Scholar
  82. Strauch, J.G., Jr (1978) The phylogeny of the Charadriiformes (Aves): A new estimate using the method of character compatibility analysis. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 34, 263–345.Google Scholar
  83. Zusi, R.L. and Bentz, G.D. (1982) Variation of a muscle in hummingbirds and swifts and its systematic implications. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 95, 412–420.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • ROBERT Bleiweiss
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and the Zoological MuseumUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations