| Literature DB >> 31442265 |
Alejandro Cantarero1, Lorenzo Pérez-Rodríguez2, Ana Ángela Romero-Haro3, Olivier Chastel4, Carlos Alonso-Alvarez5.
Abstract
Sexual selection promotes the evolution of conspicuous animal ornaments. To evolve as signals, these traits must reliably express the "quality" of the bearer, an indicator of individual fitness. Direct estimates of individual fitness may include the contribution of longevity and fecundity. However, evidence of a correlation between the level of signal expression and these two fitness components are scarce, at least among vertebrates. Relative fitness is difficult to assess in the wild as age at death and extra-pair paternity rates are often unknown. Here, in captive male red-legged partridges, we show that carotenoid-based ornament expression, i.e., redness of the bill and eye rings, at the beginning of reproductive life predicts both longevity (1-7 years) and lifetime breeding output (offspring number and hatching success). The recently proposed link between the individual capacity to produce red (keto) carotenoid pigments and the efficiency of cell respiration could, ultimately, explain the correlation with lifespan and, indirectly, fecundity. Nonetheless, in males of avian species, carotenoid-based coloration in bare parts is also partially controlled by testosterone. We also manipulated androgen levels throughout life by treating males with testosterone or antiandrogen compounds. Treatments caused correlations between signal levels and both fitness components to disappear, thus making the signals unreliable. This suggests that the evolution of carotenoid-based sexual signals requires a tightly-controlled steroid metabolism.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31442265 PMCID: PMC6707625 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221436
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Cox proportional-hazards regression for survival.
| Treatment | 5.682 | 3 | 0.128 | |||||
| Eye ring redness | 0.317 | 0.122 | 6.701 | 1 | 0.729 | 0.573 | 0.926 | |
| Eye ring redness*treatment | 7.961 | 3 | ||||||
| Eye ring redness*treatment (F) | -0.061 | 0.156 | 0.154 | 1 | 0.695 | 1.063 | 0.783 | 1.444 |
| Eye ring redness*treatment (FA) | -0.129 | 0.167 | 0.594 | 1 | 0.441 | 1.138 | 0.819 | 1.580 |
| Eye ring redness*treatment (T) | -0.479 | 0.184 | 6.761 | 1 | 1.615 | 1.125 | 2.318 | |
| Treatment | 2.985 | 3 | 0.394 | |||||
| Bill redness | 0.205 | 0.068 | 9.142 | 1 | 8.15 | 0.713 | 0.930 | |
| Bill redness*treatment | 4.851 | 3 | 0.183 | |||||
| Bill redness*treatment (F) | -0.065 | 0.090 | 0.523 | 1 | 0.470 | 1.067 | 0.895 | 1.273 |
| Bill redness*treatment (FA) | -0.094 | 0.109 | 0.737 | 1 | 0.391 | 1.098 | 0.887 | 1.360 |
| Bill redness*treatment (T) | -0.197 | 0.092 | 4.585 | 1 | 1.218 | 1.017 | 1.459 | |
*The relationship between trait redness and survival within flutamide (F), flutamide plus ATD (FA) or testosterone (T) groups using the same relationship in the control group as a reference.
P-values below 0.05 are shown in bold.
Cox proportional-hazards regression for survival and ornament (above eye ring, below bill) redness analyzed separately for each treatment.
Control (C), flutamide (F), flutamide plus ATD (FA) and testosterone (T).
| Control | 0.368 | 0.133 | 7.688 | 1 | 0.692 | -.368 | 0.133 | |
| Flutamide (F) | 0.250 | 0.107 | 5.471 | 1 | 0.779 | -.250 | 0.107 | |
| Flutamide + ATD (FA) | 0.121 | 0.114 | 1.115 | 1 | 0.291 | 0.886 | -.121 | 0.114 |
| Testosterone (T) | -0.194 | 0.140 | 1.915 | 1 | 0.166 | 1.214 | .194 | 0.140 |
| Control | 0.223 | 0.073 | 9.266 | 1 | 0.800 | 0.693 | 0.924 | |
| Flutamide (F) | 0.140 | 0.067 | 4.390 | 1 | 0.869 | 0.762 | 0.991 | |
| Flutamide + ATD (FA) | 0.086 | 0.083 | 1.062 | 1 | 0.303 | 0.918 | 0.780 | 1.080 |
| Testosterone (T) | 0.026 | 0.063 | 0.178 | 1 | 0.673 | 0.974 | 0.861 | 1.102 |
Control (C), flutamide (F), flutamide plus ATD (FA) and testosterone (T).
Fig 1Relationship between longevity and eye ring (A) or bill (B) redness in male partridges with different hormonal treatments.
Redness was measured before the first breeding opportunity. Slopes were obtained from ordinary least squares linear regressions. However, Cox regression slopes should be considered (see Results and Tables 1 and 2). Control (C), flutamide (F), flutamide plus ATD (FA) and testosterone (T) treatments. Censored data were excluded here.
Correlation between ornament redness and reproductive output in male red-legged partridges.
| C-males | Number of eggs | Number of hatchlings | Number of 14d old chicks | Hatching success | Chick survivorship | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eye ring redness | 0.538 | 0.638 | 0.555 | 0.717 | -0.278 | |
| 0.357 | ||||||
| 23 | 23 | 23 | 18 | 13 | ||
| Bill redness | 0.510 | 0.629 | 0.577 | 0.654 | 0.044 | |
| 0.886 | ||||||
| 22 | 22 | 22 | 17 | 13 | ||
| Eye ring redness | 0.417 | 0.360 | 0.249 | -0.353 | -0.363 | |
| 0.071 | 0.221 | 0.117 | 0.116 | |||
| 26 | 26 | 26 | 21 | 20 | ||
| Bill redness | 0.216 | 0.311 | 0.258 | 0.073 | -0.174 | |
| 0.301 | 0.131 | 0.213 | 0.760 | 0.477 | ||
| 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 19 | ||
| Eye ring redness | 0.075 | -0.040 | -0.030 | -0.301 | 0.111 | |
| 0.729 | 0.852 | 0.890 | 0.211 | 0.683 | ||
| 24 | 24 | 24 | 19 | 16 | ||
| Bill redness | 0.211 | 0.088 | 0.063 | -0.290 | -0.068 | |
| 0.322 | 0.683 | 0.770 | 0.228 | 0.803 | ||
| 24 | 24 | 24 | 19 | 16 | ||
| Eye ring redness | 0.110 | -0.069 | -0.125 | -0.006 | -0.163 | |
| 0.602 | 0.742 | 0.550 | 0.979 | 0.632 | ||
| 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 11 | ||
| Bill redness | 0.111 | -0.023 | -0.043 | -0.095 | 0.060 | |
| 0.598 | 0.915 | 0.840 | 0.692 | 0.860 | ||
| 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 11 |
Spearman’s correlation coefficients. P-values below 0.05 are shown in bold. P-values shown here are not controlled for multiple testing (see Statistical analyses).
Fig 2Relationship between total hatching success and eye ring (A) or bill (B) redness among control males.
The total hatching success during lifetime was predicted by the redness of the eye ring (A) or bill (B) at the start of the first breeding season among control males.