Female attractiveness affects paternal investment: experimental evidence for male differential allocation in blue tits.

Katharina Mahr, Matteo Griggio, Michela Granatiero, Herbert Hoi
Author Information
  1. Katharina Mahr: Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology (KLIVV), Department of Integrative Biology and Evolution, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna,Savoyenstraße 1a, A-1160, Vienna, Austria. matteo.griggio@vetmeduni.ac.at.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The differential allocation hypothesis (DAH) predicts that individuals should adjust their parental investment to their current mate's quality. Although in principle the DAH holds for both sexes, male adjustment of parental investment has only been tested in a few experimental studies, revealing contradictory results. We conducted a field experiment to test whether male blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) allocate their parental effort in relation to female ornamentation (ultraviolet colouration of the crown), as predicted by the DAH.
RESULTS: We reduced the UV reflectance in a sample of females and compared parental care by their mates with that of males paired to sham-manipulated control females. As predicted by the DAH our results demonstrate that males paired with UV-reduced females invested less in feeding effort but did not defend the chicks less than males paired with control females.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies providing support for male differential allocation in response to female ornamentation.

References

  1. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jun 22;270(1521):1263-70 [PMID: 12816639]
  2. Anim Behav. 1999 Mar;57(3):521-528 [PMID: 10196041]
  3. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010 May;64(6):1037-1045 [PMID: 20414331]
  4. Mol Ecol. 1998 Aug;7(8):1071-5 [PMID: 9711866]
  5. Behav Processes. 2010 Jul;84(3):739-44 [PMID: 20472042]
  6. J Evol Biol. 2003 Sep;16(5):1045-54 [PMID: 14635920]
  7. BMC Evol Biol. 2010 Aug 27;10:261 [PMID: 20799928]
  8. Oecologia. 2004 Aug;140(4):668-75 [PMID: 15248061]
  9. Naturwissenschaften. 2008 Oct;95(10):993-6 [PMID: 18548223]
  10. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jan 7;269(1486):21-7 [PMID: 11788032]
  11. J Anim Ecol. 2012 Jan;81(1):87-96 [PMID: 21819397]
  12. Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 7;273(1592):1347-53 [PMID: 16777722]
  13. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 May 7;267(1446):937-41 [PMID: 10853738]
  14. Evolution. 1980 Mar;34(2):292-305 [PMID: 28563426]
  15. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Apr;15(4):149-155 [PMID: 10717684]
  16. J Evol Biol. 2008 Jan;21(1):226-233 [PMID: 18034808]
  17. J Evol Biol. 2009 Apr;22(4):782-92 [PMID: 19320797]
  18. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jul 22;270(1523):1455-60 [PMID: 12965009]
  19. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Oct 1;15(10):397-402 [PMID: 10998516]
  20. J Evol Biol. 2011 May;24(5):976-87 [PMID: 21306464]
  21. Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Sep 22;271(1551):1903-8 [PMID: 15347512]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DAHparentalmalefemalesdifferentialallocationmalespairedinvestmentexperimentalstudiesresultsbluetitseffortfemaleornamentationpredictedcontrollessINTRODUCTION:hypothesispredictsindividualsadjustcurrentmate'squalityAlthoughprincipleholdssexesadjustmenttestedrevealingcontradictoryconductedfieldexperimenttestwhetherCyanistescaeruleusallocaterelationultravioletcolourationcrownRESULTS:reducedUVreflectancesamplecomparedcarematessham-manipulateddemonstrateUV-reducedinvestedfeedingdefendchicksCONCLUSIONS:knowledgeonefirstprovidingsupportresponseFemaleattractivenessaffectspaternalinvestment:evidence

Similar Articles

Cited By