Abstract
Sexual-selection theories generally assume that mating preferences are heritable traits. However, there is substantial evidence that the rearing environment may be important for the development of mating preferences, indicating that they may be learnt, or modified by experience. The relative importance of such sexual imprinting across species remains largely unexplored. Here, we report results of a large-scale cross-fostering experiment in the wild in which nestling birds were raised by parents of a different species. We show that resulting sexual imprinting may have a negative effect on pairing success in one species (the great tit, Parus major), but not in two other species (the blue tit, P. caeruleus and the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca). A remarkable variation thus seems to exist, even between species that are congeneric and have similar breeding ecologies. The cross-fostering resulted in heterospecific pairings between the two tit species (female blue tit breeding with male great tit), which has never, to our knowledge, been previously documented. However, the chicks fledging from these nests were all blue tit.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (165.6 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bensch S., Price T., Kohn J. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in a Phylloscopus warbler. Mol Ecol. 1997 Jan;6(1):91–92. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1997.00150.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bischof H. J., Rollenhagen A. Behavioural and neurophysiological aspects of sexual imprinting in zebra finches. Behav Brain Res. 1999 Feb 1;98(2):267–276. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4328(98)00093-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Irwin DE, Price T. Sexual imprinting, learning and speciation . Heredity (Edinb) 1999 Apr;82(Pt 4):347–354. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6885270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jennions M. D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1997 May;72(2):283–327. doi: 10.1017/s0006323196005014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kendrick K. M., Hinton M. R., Atkins K., Haupt M. A., Skinner J. D. Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature. 1998 Sep 17;395(6699):229–230. doi: 10.1038/26129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Owens IP, Rowe C, Thomas AL. Sexual selection, speciation and imprinting: separating the sheep from the goats. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Apr;14(4):131–132. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01578-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- Penn D., Potts W. MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Jul 22;265(1403):1299–1306. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rollenhagen A., Bischof H. J. Evidence for the involvement of two areas of the zebra finch forebrain in sexual imprinting. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2000 Mar;73(2):101–113. doi: 10.1006/nlme.1999.3922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Veen T., Borge T., Griffith S. C., Saetre G. P., Bures S., Gustafsson L., Sheldon B. C. Hybridization and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. Nature. 2001 May 3;411(6833):45–50. doi: 10.1038/35075000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]