Skip to main content
Log in

Frequency of bird hybrids: does detectability make all the difference?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Ornithology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of hybrids recorded in the field may be biased because these data may simply reflect the detectability of a hybrid pairing. A questionnaire was constructed for assessing the detectability of natural avian hybrids. Ratings from 17 independent experienced observers were subjected to factor analysis and all observers loaded onto the same single factor. The reliability was extremely high (Cronbach’s alpha=0.96). Initially, I found a weak positive and significant correlation between the number of hybrids and their detectability index (r s=0.268; P=0.015; n=81). However, the respective correlations within three orders and one family containing enough hybrids for analysis revealed non-significant results. Significant differences existed among orders with respect to both detectability and hybrid frequency. At the family level, differences existed in detectability, but not in the number of hybrids recorded. Furthermore, I found no publication bias. These results suggest a general influence of detectability and on higher taxonomic levels, and that either detectability or the number of hybrids vary between orders possibly due to phylogenetic effects. Data about hybrids should be used in a cautious manner in analyses across a wide range of species, but seem unbiased when restricted to analyses within orders and families. As a rule of thumb, distinctness of hybrids seems to be a function of the plumage difference between the hybridising species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adolfsson K, Cherrug S (1995) Bird identification. A reference guide. Anser [suppl] 37:1–379

  • Atteslander P (2000) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. DeGruyter, Berlin

  • Böhning-Gaese K, Oberrath R (2001) Which factors influence the abundance and range size of Central European birds? Avian Sci 1:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillham E, Gillham B (1996) Hybrid ducks. A contribution towards an inventory. Gillham, Lydd on Sea, Sussex, UK

  • Gillham E, Gillham B (2002) Hybrid ducks. The 5th contribution towards an inventory. Gillham, Lydd on Sea, Sussex, UK

  • Götmark F, Hohlfält A (1995) Bright male plumage and predation risk in passerine birds: are males easier to detect than females? Oikos 74:475–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant RB (1992) Hybridization of bird species. Science 256:193–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselquist D, Sherman PW (2001) Social mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in passerine birds. Behav Ecol 12:457–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Helbig AJ, Salomon M, Bensch S, Seibold I (2001) Male-biased gene flow across an avian hybrid zone: evidence from mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA. J Evol Biol 14:277–287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson SG (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 

  • Møller AP (1997) Immune defence, extra-pair paternity, and sexual selection in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:561–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randler C (1999) Zum Auftreten von Hybriden zwischen Tafel- und Reiherente Aythya ferina x A. fuligula in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Vogelwelt 120:211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Randler C (2000) Wasservogelhybriden (Anseriformes) im westlichen Mitteleuropa—Verbreitung, Auftreten und Ursachen. Ökol Vögel 22:1–106

  • Randler C (2002) Avian hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim Behav 63:103–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley CG, Ahlquist, JE (1990) Phylogeny and classification of birds. A study in molecular evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

  • Tubaro PL, Lijtmaer D (2002) Hybridization patterns and the evolution of reproductive isolation in ducks. Biol J Linn Soc 77: 193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underhill LG, Kalejta-Summers B (1995) Blood parasites in bright birds: testing the Hamilton-Zuk-hypothesis in sub-saharan Africa with improved statistical method. Ostrich 66:10–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my gratitude especially to Armin Baur for scanning photos and preparing parts of the questionnaire, and to Nils Anthes, Dr. Jürgen Blessing, Jan-Peter Daniels, Dr. Jochen Dierschke, Christian Dietzen, Hans-Georg Folz, Martin Gottschling, Dr. Nikolas Haass, Peter Knaus, Thorsten Krüger, Jörg Langenberg, Ulrich Mahler, Adrian Raidt, Frank Rheindt, Volker Schmidt, Christian Wegst and Ingo Weiß for rating the hybrid types. Dr. Nikolas Haass further provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Two anonymous reviewers also gave helpful comments that improved the manuscript. Compiling data from original literature would never have been possible without the help of Dr. Jochen Hölzinger and his permission for visiting and using his library.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Randler.

Additional information

Communicated by F. Bairlein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Randler, C. Frequency of bird hybrids: does detectability make all the difference?. J Ornithol 145, 123–128 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-004-0022-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-004-0022-0

Keywords

Navigation