Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1996 Oct 15;93(21):11723–11728. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.21.11723

Sex ratio adjustment in relation to paternal attractiveness in a wild bird population.

H Ellegren 1, L Gustafsson 1, B C Sheldon 1
PMCID: PMC38125  PMID: 8876204

Abstract

When the relative fitness of sons and daughters differs, sex-allocation theory predicts that it would be adaptive for individuals to adjust their investment in different sexes of offspring. Sex ratio adjustment by females in response to the sexual attractiveness of their mate would be an example of this. In vertebrates the existence of this form of sex ratio adjustment is controversial and may be confounded with sex-biased mortality, particularly in sexually size-dimorphic species. Here we use PCR amplification of a conserved W-chromosome-linked gene to show that the sex ratio within broods of a natural population of sexually size-monomorphic collared flycatchers Ficedula albicollis is related to the size of their father's forehead patch, a heritable secondary sexual character implicated in female choice. Experimental manipulations of paternal investment, which influence the size of his character in future breeding attempts, result in corresponding changes in the sex ratio of offspring born to males in those breeding attempts. In contrast, manipulations of maternal investment have no effect on future sex ratios, and there is no relationship between variables predicting the reproductive value of the brood and nestling sex ratio. Analysis of recruitment of offspring reveals similar patterns of sex ratio bias. The results suggest that female collared flycatchers be able to adjust the sex ratio of eggs ovulated in response to the phenotype of their mate. This finding is most consistent with "genetic quality" models of sexual selection.

Full text

PDF
11723

Images in this article

11724Fig. 1
on p.11724
11726Fig. 4
on p.11726

Selected References

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

  1. Blank J. L., Nolan V. Offspring sex ratio in red-winged blackbirds is dependent on maternal age. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Oct;80(19):6141–6145. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.19.6141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burley N. Sex ratio manipulation and selection for attractiveness. Science. 1981 Feb 13;211(4483):721–722. doi: 10.1126/science.211.4483.721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charnov E. L., Los-den Hartogh R. L., Jones W. T., van den Assem J. Sex ratio evolution in a variable environment. Nature. 1981 Jan 1;289(5793):27–33. doi: 10.1038/289027a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Griffiths P. D. Studies to define viral cofactors for human immunodeficiency virus. Infect Agents Dis. 1992 Oct;1(5):237–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Griffiths R., Tiwari B. The isolation of molecular genetic markers for the identification of sex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Sep 15;90(18):8324–8326. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.18.8324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Griffiths R., Tlwarl B. Sex of the last wild Spix's macaw. Nature. 1995 Jun 8;375(6531):454–454. doi: 10.1038/375454a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hamilton W. D. Extraordinary sex ratios. A sex-ratio theory for sex linkage and inbreeding has new implications in cytogenetics and entomology. Science. 1967 Apr 28;156(3774):477–488. doi: 10.1126/science.156.3774.477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hurst L. D., Pomiankowski A. Causes of sex ratio bias may account for unisexual sterility in hybrids: a new explanation of Haldane's rule and related phenomena. Genetics. 1991 Aug;128(4):841–858. doi: 10.1093/genetics/128.4.841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Krackow S. Potential mechanisms for sex ratio adjustment in mammals and birds. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1995 May;70(2):225–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01066.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Price T., Kirkpatrick M., Arnold S. J. Directional selection and the evolution of breeding date in birds. Science. 1988 May 6;240(4853):798–799. doi: 10.1126/science.3363360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rice W. R., Gaines S. D. Extending nondirectional heterogeneity tests to evaluate simply ordered alternative hypotheses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jan 4;91(1):225–226. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.1.225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Trivers R. L., Willard D. E. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science. 1973 Jan 5;179(4068):90–92. doi: 10.1126/science.179.4068.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Williams G. C. The question of adaptive sex ratio in outcrossed vertebrates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):567–580. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES