Mate preference does not influence reproductive motivation and parental cooperation in female zebra finches

in Behaviour
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

In socially monogamous species, low availability of sexually active unpaired individuals in the local population may constrain mate choice, resulting in mating with sub-optimal partners. Here we experimentally investigate whether female reproductive behaviour is different when paired with a preferred or a non-preferred male in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). First, we assessed female mating preferences using a four-way choice apparatus, then females were caged together with either their preferred or least-preferred male. Female reproductive motivation, assessed by the propensity of laying eggs within two weeks from pairing and clutch mass, did not differ between the two experimental groups. Females responded to mate removal by either increasing their care, so as to compensate for the lost care of their mate, or by significantly reducing incubation. This bimodal response was not explained by mate preference, nevertheless, we found that females with lower baseline (i.e., pre-manipulation) incubation effort were more likely to cease incubation during mate removal. Taken together, we found no evidence that female reproductive behaviour varies along with mate preference.

Mate preference does not influence reproductive motivation and parental cooperation in female zebra finches

in Behaviour

Sections

References

BartaZ.HoustonA.I.McNamaraJ.M.SzékelyT. (2002). Sexual conflict about parental care: the role of reserves. — Am. Nat. 159: 687-705.

BennettA.T.D.CuthillI.C.PartridgeJ.C.MaierE.J. (1996). Ultraviolet vision and mate choice in zebra finches. — Nature 380: 433-435.

BizeP.DiazC.LindstromJ. (2012). Experimental evidence that adult antipredator behaviour is heritable and not influenced by behavioural copying in a wild bird. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 279: 1380-1388.

BolundE.SchielzethH.ForstmeierW. (2009). Compensatory investment in zebra finches: females lay larger eggs when paired to sexually unattractive males. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 276: 707-715.

BurleyN.T. (1986). Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. — Am. Nat. 127: 415-445.

BurleyN.T. (1988). The differential-allocation hypothesis — an experimental test. — Am. Nat. 132: 611-628.

CaspersB.A.KrauseE.T. (2011). Odour-based natal nest recognition in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata), a colony-breeding songbird. — Biol. Lett. 7: 184-186.

Clutton-BrockT.H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. — Princeton University PressPrinceton, NJ.

DorR.LotemA. (2010). Parental effort and response to nestling begging in the house sparrow: repeatability, heritability and parent-offspring co-evolution. — J. Evol. Biol. 23: 1605-1612.

FisherM.O.NagerR.G.MonaghanP. (2006). Compensatory growth impairs adult cognitive performance. — PLoS Biol. 4: 1462-1466.

ForstmeierW.BirkheadT.R. (2004). Repeatability of mate choice in the zebra finch: consistency within and between females. — Anim. Behav. 68: 1017-1028.

GormanH.E.ArnoldK.E.NagerR.G. (2005). Incubation effort in relation to male attractiveness in zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata. — J. Avian Biol. 36: 413-420.

GowatyP.A. (2003). Power asymmetries between the sexes, mate preferences, and components of fitness. — In: Evolution gender and rape ( TravisC.B. ed.). MIT PressCambridge, MA p.  61-86.

GowatyP.A. (2008). Reproductive compensation. — J. Evol. Biol. 21: 1189-1200.

GowatyP.A.AndersonW.W.BluhmC.K.DrickamerL.C.KimY.K.MooreA.J. (2007). The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 15023-15027.

GriffithS.C.HolleleyC.E.MarietteM.M.PrykeS.R.SvedinN. (2010). Low level of extrapair parentage in wild zebra finches. — Anim. Behav. 79: 261-264.

GriffithS.C.PrykeS.R.ButtemerW.A. (2011). Constrained mate choice in social monogamy and the stress of having an unattractive partner. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 278: 2798-2805.

GriggioM.MatessiG.PilastroA. (2005). Should I stay or should I go? Female brood desertion and male counterstrategy in rock sparrows. — Behav. Ecol. 16: 435-441.

HarrisonF.BartaZ.CuthillI.SzékelyT. (2009). How is sexual conflict over parental care resolved? A meta-analysis. — J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1800-1812.

HoppittW.LalandK.N. (2013). Social learning: an introduction to mechanisms methods and models. — Princeton University PressPrinceton, NJ.

KosztolányiA.CuthillI.C.SzékelyT. (2009). Negotiation between parents over care: reversible compensation during incubation. — Behav. Ecol. 20: 446-452.

KrauseE.T.NaguibM. (2011). Compensatory growth affects exploratory behaviour in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. — Anim. Behav. 81: 1295-1300.

KrauseE.T.KrügerO.KohlmeierP.CaspersB.A. (2012). Olfactory kin recognition in a songbird. — Biol. Lett. 8: 327-329.

LackD.L. (1968). Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. — MethuenLondon.

LendvaiÁ.Z.BartaZ.ChastelO. (2009). Conflict over parental care in house sparrows: do females use a negotiation rule?Behav. Ecol. 20: 651-656.

LessellsC.M. (2006). The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. — Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 361: 301-317.

LikerA. (1995). Monogamy in precocial birds: a review. — Ornis Hung. 5: 1-14.

MacCollA.D.C.HatchwellB.J. (2003). Heritability of parental effort in a passerine bird. — Evolution 57: 2191-2195.

Maynard SmithJ. (1977). Parental investment: a prospective analysis. — Anim. Behav. 25: 1-9.

McNamaraJ.M.WeissingF.J. (2010). Evolutionary game theory. — In: Social behaviour: genes ecology and evolution ( SzékelyT.MooreA.J.KomdeurJ. eds). Cambridge University PressCambridge.

McNamaraJ.M.HoustonA.I.BartaZ.OsornoJ.L. (2003). Should young ever be better off with one parent than with two?Behav. Ecol. 14: 301-310.

MetcalfeN.B.MonaghanP. (2001). Compensation for a bad start: grow now, pay later?Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 254-260.

PariserE.C.MarietteM.M.GriffithS.C. (2010). Artificial ornaments manipulate intrinsic male quality in wild-caught zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). — Behav. Ecol. 21: 264-269.

PogányÁ.HeszbergerJ.SzuroveczZ.VinczeE.SzékelyT. (2014). An infrared motion detector system for lossless real-time monitoring of animal preference tests. — Acta Biol. Hung. 65: in press.

R Core Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. — R Foundation for Statistical ComputingVienna.

RatikainenI.I.KokkoH. (2010). Differential allocation and compensation: who deserves the silver spoon?Behav. Ecol. 21: 195-200.

RehlingA.SpillerI.KrauseE.T.NagerR.G.MonaghanP.TrillmichF. (2012). Flexibility in the duration of parental care: zebra finch parents respond to offspring needs. — Anim. Behav. 83: 35-39.

RoyleN.J.HartleyI.R.ParkerG.A. (2002). Sexual conflict reduces offspring fitness in zebra finches. — Nature 416: 733-736.

SheldonB.C. (2000). Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 397-402.

SwaddleJ.P.CuthillI.C. (1994). Preference for symmetrical males by female zebra finches. — Nature 367: 165-166.

van DijkR.E.PogányÁ.KomdeurJ.LloydP.SzékelyT. (2010). Sexual conflict predicts morphology and behavior in two species of penduline tits. — BMC Evol. Biol. 10: 107.

WaasJ.R.WordsworthA.F. (1999). Female zebra finches prefer symmetrically banded males, but only during interactive mate choice tests. — Anim. Behav. 57: 1113-1119.

WhittinghamL.A.DunnP.O.RobertsonR.J. (1994). Female response to reduced male parental care in birds — an experiment in tree swallows. — Ethology 96: 260-269.

WrightJ.CuthillI. (1989). Manipulation of sex-differences in parental care. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25: 171-181.

ZannR.A. (1996). Zebra finch: a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. — Oxford University PressOxford.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Plan view of the four-way mate choice apparatus. The middle, neutral chamber (N) opens in four choice chambers (C), and a stimulus compartment (S) is attached to each of the choice chambers in which males in their home cages are presented.

  • View in gallery

    Pre-manipulation incubation of male and female zebra finch parents (r=0.79, df = 27, p<0.0001). Pre-manipulation incubation is the proportion of total observation time (6 h) that the male (or female) spent inside the nest box on day 8 of incubation. Filled circles represent couples in which the female was paired to her preferred male, and open circles represent pairs in which the female is paired with her least-preferred male.

  • View in gallery

    Incubation (proportion of 6 h observation time inside the nest) of zebra finch females on days 8–10 of incubation (pre-manipulation, male removal and post-manipulation). The male was removed on day 9 of incubation for the full period of behavioural recording. Filled circles represent females paired with their preferred and open circles represent females paired with their least-preferred male.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 35 35 12
Full Text Views 93 93 37
PDF Downloads 3 3 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0