| Literature DB >> 31412767 |
Jan T Lifjeld1, Jostein Gohli2, Tomáš Albrecht3,4, Eduardo Garcia-Del-Rey5, Lars Erik Johannessen2, Oddmund Kleven6, Petter Z Marki2,7, Taiwo C Omotoriogun2,8,9, Melissah Rowe2,10, Arild Johnsen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female promiscuity is highly variable among birds, and particularly among songbirds. Comparative work has identified several patterns of covariation with social, sexual, ecological and life history traits. However, it is unclear whether these patterns reflect causes or consequences of female promiscuity, or if they are byproducts of some unknown evolutionary drivers. Moreover, factors that explain promiscuity at the deep nodes in the phylogenetic tree may be different from those important at the tips, i.e. among closely related species. Here we examine the relationships between female promiscuity and a broad set of predictor variables in a comprehensive data set (N = 202 species) of Passerides songbirds, which is a highly diversified infraorder of the Passeriformes exhibiting significant variation in female promiscuity.Entities:
Keywords: Extrapair paternity; Life history; Mating system; Pair bond; Parental care; Sexual selection
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31412767 PMCID: PMC6694576 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-019-1493-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Relationship between the proportion of extrapair young in a population and the coefficient of total sperm length variation (sperm length CV) among males in the same population for 24 Passerides species (data in Additional file 4). The blue line is the linear regression line; its equation and the standardized regression coefficient are indicated. Shaded area show the 95% confidence interval for the regression line. The regression line was used to predict the proportion of extrapair young from estimates of sperm length CV in species without paternity data (see Additional file 3). Note that transformed values are used. A PGLS showed that the phylogenetic signal in this relationship (λ = 0.647) was not statistically different from λ = 0 (P = 0.126) and significantly lower than λ = 1 (P = 0.038; R2 = 0.774)
Fig. 2Phylogenetic distribution of female promiscuity estimates for the 202 Passerides species. A maximum clade credibility tree, derived from 1 000 trees, is shown. Female promiscuity estimates were derived from two sources: molecular paternity studies and the coefficient of total sperm length variation (for further details see Methods). Bars at tips indicate female promiscuity estimates for each species, with branch colouring indicating ancestral estimates of female promiscuity as inferred using the contMap function in the R package phytools. For better visualization (because of highly skewed data), species were binned into ten promiscuity categories ranging from 1 to 10, with 20–21 species in each category
PGLS results of single predictor variables on female promiscuity in Passerides songbirds
| Predictor variable | N | Estimate (SE) |
| λ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male parental care | |||||
| Nest building | 173 | − 0.399 (0.099) | − 4.030 ( | 0.081 | 0.594 |
| Incubation | 181 | −0.308 (0.122) | −2.525 ( | 0.029 | 0.497 |
| Chick feeding | 174 | −0.239 (0.157) | −1.524 (0.129) | 0.013 | 0.617 |
| Plumage colouration | |||||
| Sexual dichromatisma | 200 | 0.030 (0.010) | 2.835 ( | 0.039 | 0.751 |
| Male coloura | 200 | 0.014 (0.011) | 1.296 (0.197) | 0.008 | 0.784 |
| Female coloura | 200 | −0.036 (0.015) | −2.359 ( | 0.027 | 0.694 |
| Migratory behaviour | |||||
| Categoriesa | 177 | 0.235 (0.079) | 2.988 ( | 0.049 | 0.604 |
| Distance | 202 | 0.326 (0.109) | 3.006 ( | ||
| (Distance)2 | 202 | −0.040 (0.015) | −2.729 ( | 0.044 | 0.711 |
| Body sizea | 177 | −0.037 (0.155) | −0.237 (0.813) | 0.000 | 0.694 |
| Tropical life historya | 177 | −0.176 (0.092) | −1.916 (0.057) | 0.021 | 0.649 |
| Latitude | 202 | 0.001 (0.005) | 0.264 (0.792) | 0.000 | 0.761 |
| Tropical/temperate | 202 | 0.267 (0.216) | 1.235 (0.218) | 0.008 | 0.734 |
| Social bondb | 202 | −0.368 (0.151) | −2.441 ( | 0.029 | 0.723 |
| Sexual selectiona | 177 | 0.236 (0.098) | 2.408 ( | 0.017 | 0.655 |
| Cooperative breedinga | 177 | −0.016 (0.074) | −0.211 (0.833) | 0.000 | 0.691 |
aData from Dale et al. [64]. b Data from Tobias et al. [65]. Significant P-values are indicated in bold. All λ-values were significantly different (P < 0.001) from λ = 0 and λ = 1. The results using the maximum clade credibility tree (Fig. 2) are shown. For results based on the 1000 phylogenetic trees, see Additional file 5
Fig. 3Boxplots showing the relationship between male parental care and female promiscuity. The pink boxes indicate the first and third quartiles where the internal line is the median; bars are 1.5 interquartile ranges with outliers indicated. Numbers indicate sample sizes. Plots are shown separately for the three stages of the breeding cycle: a nest building, b incubation, and c chick provisioning. Male parental care was scored as one of four categories: no male care, male care lower than female care, male care equal to female care, and male care only
Fig. 4Boxplot showing the relationship between the duration of social pair bonds and female promiscuity. The pink boxes indicate the first and third quartiles where the internal line is the median; bars are 1.5 interquartile ranges with outliers indicated. Numbers indicate sample sizes. Data on social bond duration was taken from Tobias et al. [65]
Fig. 5Scatterplots of the relationship between female promiscuity and measures of plumage colouration. a sexual dichromatism, b male plumage colouration, c female plumage colouration. Linear regression lines with 95% confidence intervals are indicated
Fig. 6Relationship between migratory behaviour and female promiscuity. a Boxplot showing female promiscuity estimates for residents, partial migrants and full migrants. The pink boxes indicate the first and third quartiles where the internal line is the median; bars are 1.5 interquartile ranges with outliers indicated. Numbers are sample sizes. b Scatterplot showing female promiscuity as a function of migration distance. A polynomial regression line with 95% confidence interval is indicated for illustration
Results of the best multivariate PGLS model of female promiscuity in Passerides songbirds
| Predictor | Estimate (SE) | t (P) |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −1.257 (0.498) | −2.523 ( |
| Male nest building | −0.339 (0.097) | −3.504 ( |
| Sexual dichromatisma | 0.030 (0.010) | 2.854 ( |
| Migration distance | 0.217 (0.118) | 1.835 (0.068) |
| (Migration distance)2 | −0.029 (0.015) | −1.896 (0.059) |
| Social bondb | −0.353 (0.165) | −2.135 ( |
Whole model: F5,167 = 7.703, N = 173, P < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.163, λ = 0.475
aData from Dale et al. [64]. b Data from Tobias et al. [65]. The best model was chosen among all models ran from a reduced data set of 154 species with no missing values for any variable in a backwards stepwise deletion approach until only significant (P < 0.05) predictors remained. The model with fewest predictor variables was chosen from the set of best performing models (separated from the rest by delta AIC < 2; Additional file 6). The model shown here is based on a maximized data set (no missing values among the included predictor variables). The λ-value was significantly different from λ = 0 (P < 0.001) and λ = 1 (P < 0.001). Significant variables in bold (P < 0.05)