Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Sep 22;271(1551):1903–1908. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2825

Female blue tits adjust parental effort to manipulated male UV attractiveness.

Tobias Limbourg 1, A Christa Mateman 1, Staffan Andersson 1, C M Lessells 1
PMCID: PMC1691818  PMID: 15347512

Abstract

The differential allocation hypothesis predicts that parents should adjust their current investment in relation to perceived mate attractiveness if this affects offspring fitness. It should be selectively advantageous to risk more of their future reproductive success by investing heavily in current offspring of high reproductive value but to decrease investment if offspring value is low. If the benefits of mate attractiveness are limited to a particular offspring sex we would instead expect relative investment in male versus female offspring to vary with mate attractiveness, referred to as 'differential sex allocation'. We present strong evidence for differential allocation of parental feeding effort in the wild and show an immediate effect on a component of offspring fitness. By experimentally reducing male UV crown coloration, a trait known to indicate attractiveness and viability in wild-breeding blue tits (Parus caeruleus), we show that females, but not males, reduce parental feeding rates and that this reduces the skeletal growth of offspring. However, differential sex allocation does not occur. We conclude that blue tit females use male UV coloration as an indicator of expected offspring fitness and adjust their investment accordingly.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (131.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Charnov E. L. The theory of sex allocation. Monogr Popul Biol. 1982;18:1–355. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cunningham E. J., Russell A. F. Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature. 2000 Mar 2;404(6773):74–77. doi: 10.1038/35003565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eaton Muir D., Lanyon Scott M. The ubiquity of avian ultraviolet plumage reflectance. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 22;270(1525):1721–1726. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gil D., Graves J., Hazon N., Wells A. Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science. 1999 Oct 1;286(5437):126–128. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5437.126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Griffith S. C., Ornborg J., Russell A. F., Andersson S., Sheldon B. C. Correlations between ultraviolet coloration, overwinter survival and offspring sex ratio in the blue tit. J Evol Biol. 2003 Sep;16(5):1045–1054. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00550.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Griffiths R., Double M. C., Orr K., Dawson R. J. A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol. 1998 Aug;7(8):1071–1075. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00389.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hamilton W. D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384–387. doi: 10.1126/science.7123238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hunt S, Cuthill IC, Bennett AT, Griffiths R. Preferences for ultraviolet partners in the blue tit. Anim Behav. 1999 Oct;58(4):809–815. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hunt Sarah, Kilner Rebecca M., Langmore Naomi E., Bennett Andrew T. D. Conspicuous, ultraviolet-rich mouth colours in begging chicks. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 7;270 (Suppl 1):S25–S28. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Johnsen Arild, Delhey Kaspar, Andersson Staffan, Kempenaers Bart. Plumage colour in nestling blue tits: sexual dichromatism, condition dependence and genetic effects. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jun 22;270(1521):1263–1270. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kolm N. Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Nov 7;268(1482):2229–2234. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. MØller Ap, Thornhill R. Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim Behav. 1998 Jun;55(6):1507–1515. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ohlsson Thomas, Smith Henrik G., Råberg Lars, Hasselquist Dennis. Pheasant sexual ornaments reflect nutritional conditions during early growth. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jan 7;269(1486):21–27. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  15. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  16. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  17. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  18. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  19. Reyer H. U., Frei G., Som C. Cryptic female choice: frogs reduce clutch size when amplexed by undesired males. Proc Biol Sci. 1999 Oct 22;266(1433):2101–2107. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Schwabl H. Yolk is a source of maternal testosterone for developing birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Dec 15;90(24):11446–11450. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.24.11446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sheldon BC. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Oct 1;15(10):397–402. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01953-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES