Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in Carolina Wrens

2006; Association of Field Ornithologists; Volume: 77; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1557-9263.2006.00051.x

1557-9263

Thomas M. Haggerty,

Amphibian and Reptile Biology

Journal of Field OrnithologyVolume 77, Issue 3 p. 259-265 Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in Carolina Wrens Dimorfismo sexual en tamaño y diversidad en el apariamiento en Thryothorus ludovicianus Thomas M. Haggerty, Corresponding Author Thomas M. Haggerty Department of Biology, University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama 35632, USA Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Thomas M. Haggerty, Corresponding Author Thomas M. Haggerty Department of Biology, University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama 35632, USA Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 11 September 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2006.00051.xCitations: 6Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstracten ABSTRACT Sexual size dimorphism (SSD) may be due to sexual and natural selection, but identifying specific mechanisms that generate such dimorphism in a species is difficult. I examined SSD in Carolina Wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus) by examining (1) the degree of SSD in the population and between pairs using five morphometrics, (2) assortative mating patterns based on size and age, and (3) relationships between size and longevity. Analysis revealed that males were significantly larger than females in all body measurements. For example, mass, bill, and wing measurements yielded a canonical variable that permitted separation of the sexes and linear classification functions correctly determined the sex of 95% (238/250) of all wrens measured. No evidence was found to suggest that SSD was related to resource partitioning. However, assortative mating trends based on morphometrics (e.g., wing length), positive associations between longevity and morphometrics (e.g., wing length in females and body size in males), and intense male-male contests for territorial resources year-round provide evidence that sexual selection may contribute to SSD in Carolina Wrens. SINOPSISes El dimorfismo sexual en tamaño, puede ser el efecto de la selección sexual o natural, pero la identificación de los mecanismos particulares que generan el mismo son difíciles de establecer. Estudié el dimorfismo sexual en el reyezuelo Thryothorus ludovicianus examinando (1) el grado de dimorfismo sexual en tamaño (DST), (2) el patrón de la selección de parejas, basado en el tamaño y la edad de los individuos y (3) la relación entre tamaño y longevidad. El análisis reveló que los machos son significativamente morfométricamente más grandes que las hembras. Por ejemplo, la masa corporal, y el tamaño del pico y del ala rindieron una variable que permitió la separación de los sexos y una función de clasificación lineal que además permitió determinar correctamente el sexo del 95% (238/250) de todos los reyezuelos medidos. No se encontró evidencia que sugiera que el DST este relacionado a la repartición en el uso de recursos. Sin embargo, la tendencia a la selección de parejas, basada en morfometría (ejemplo, largo del ala), asociación positiva entre la longevidad y la morfometría (ejemplo, largo del ala en las hembras y tamaño del cuerpo en los machos), y la intensa competencia entre machos por territorios con buenos recursos, (a través del año), proveen evidencia para indicar que la selección sexual pudiera contribuir al DST en el ave estudiada. LITERATURE CITED Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton , NJ . Badyaev, A. V., and T. E. Martin. 2000. Sexual dimorphism in relation to current selection in the House Finch. Evolution 54: 987– 997. Blondel, J., P. Perret, M.-C. Anstett, and C. Thébaud. 2002. Evolution of sexual size dimorphism in birds: test of hypotheses using Blue Tits in contrasted Mediterranean habitats. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15: 440– 450. Boag, P. T., and P. R. Grant. 1978. Heritability of external morphology in Darwin's finches. Nature 274: 793– 794. Chardine, J. W., and R. D. Morris. 1989. Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in the Brown Noddy. Condor 91: 868– 874. Coulter, M. C. 1986. Assortative mating and sexual dimorphism in the Common Tern. Wilson Bulletin 98: 93– 100. Delestrade, A. 2001. Sexual size dimorphism and positive assortative mating in Alpine Choughs (Pyrrhocorax graculus). Auk 118: 553– 556. Dunn, P. O., L. A. Whittingham, and T. E. Pitcher. 2001. Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution 55: 165– 175. Forero, M. G., J. L. Tella, J. A. Donazar, G. Blanco, M. Bertellotti, and O. Ceballos. 2001. Phenotypic assortative mating and within-pair sexual dimorphism and its influence on breeding success and offspring quality in Magellanic Penguins. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 1414– 1422. González-Solís, J. 2004. Sexual size dimorphism in northern giant petrels: ecological correlates and scaling. Oikos 105: 247– 254. Gorrell, J. V., G. Ritchison, and E. S. Morton. 2005. Territory size and stability in a sedentary neotropical passerine: is resource partitioning a necessary condition? Journal of Field Ornithology 76: 395– 401. Haggerty, T. M., and E. S. Morton. 1995. Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). In: The birds of North America, no. 188 ( A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union , Washington , D.C . Haggerty, T. M., E. S. Morton, and R. C. Fleischer. 2001. Genetic monogamy in Carolina Wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Auk 118: 215– 219. Hedrick, A. V., and E. J. Temeles. 1989. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4: 136– 138. Helfenstein, F., E. Danchin, and R. H. Wagner. 2004. Assortative mating and sexual size dimorphism in Black-legged Kittiwakes. Waterbirds 27: 350– 354. Hyman, J. 2002. Conditional strategies in territorial defense: do Carolina Wrens play tit-for-tat? Behavioral Ecology 13: 664– 669. Hyman, J. 2005. Seasonal variation in response to neighbors and strangers by a territorial songbird. Ethology 111: 951– 961. Jehl, J. R., Jr., and B. G. Murray, Jr. 1986. The evolution of normal and reverse sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds and other birds. Current Ornithology 3: 1– 86. JMP 2004. JMP: The statistical discovery software, version 5.1.2. SAS Institute , Cary , NC . Johnstone, R. A., J. D. Reynolds, and J. C. Deutsch. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50: 1382– 1391. MacDougall, A. K., and R. Montgomerie. 2003. Assortative mating by carotenoid-based plumage colour: a quality indicator in American Goldfinches, Carduelis tristis. Naturewissenshaften 90: 464– 467. Magrath, M. J. L., L. Brouwer, A. Van Peterson, M. L. Berg, and J. Komdeur. 2003. Breeding behaviour and ecology of the sexually size-dimorphic Brown Songlark, Cinclorhamphus cruralis. Australian Journal of Zoology 51: 429– 441. Marzluff, J. M., and R. P. Balda. 1988. Pairing patterns and fitness in a free-ranging population of Pinyon Jays: what do they reveal about mate choice? Condor 90: 201– 213. Mennill, D. J. and S. L. Vehrencamp. 2005. Sex differences in singing and duetting behaviour of neotropical Rufous-and-white Wrens (Thryothorus rufalbus). Auk 122: 175– 186. Nealen, P. M., and D. J. Perkel. 2000. Sexual dimorphism in the song system of the Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus. Journal of Comparative Neurology 418: 346– 360. Owens, I. P. F., and I. R. Hartley. 1998. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265: 397– 407. Peters, W. D., and T. C. Grubb, Jr. 1983. An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the Downy Woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64: 1437– 1443. Price, T. D. 1984a. The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in Darwin's finches. American Naturalist 123: 500– 518. Price, T. D. 1984b. Sexual selection on body size, territory and plumage variables in a population of Darwin's finches. Evolution 38: 327– 341. Przybylo, R. 1995. Intersexual niche differentiation—field data on the great tit Parus major. Journal of Avian Biology 26: 20– 24. Pyle, P. 1997. Identification guide to North American birds. Part I. Columbidae to Ploceidae. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas , CA . Radford, A. N., and M. A. Du Plessis. 2004. Extreme sexual dimorphism in Green Woodhoopoe (Phoeniculus purpureus) bill length: a case of sexual selection? Auk 121: 178– 183. Reid, W. V. 1988. Age correlations within pairs of breeding birds. Auk 105: 278– 285. Rising, J. D., and K. M. Somers. 1989. The measurement of overall body size in birds. Auk 106: 666– 674. Sandercock, B. K. 1998. Assortative mating and sexual size dimorphism in Western and Semipalmated sandpipers. Auk 115: 786– 791. SAS Institute . 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, OnlineDoc, version eight. SAS Institute , Cary , NC . Searcy, W. A. 1979. Sexual selection and body size in male Red-winged Blackbirds. Evolution 33: 649– 661. Selander, R. K. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68: 113– 151. Shine, R. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 419– 461. Stern, M. A., and R. L. Jarvis. 1991. Sexual dimorphism and assortative mating in Black Terns. Wilson Bulletin 103: 266– 271. Temeles, E. J., I. L. Pan, J. L. Brennan, and J. N. Horwitt. 2000. Evidence for ecological causation of sexual dimorphism in a hummingbird. Science 289: 441– 443. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man ( B. Campbell, ed.), pp. 136– 179. Aldine , Chicago , IL . Wagner, R. H. 1999. Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in Razorbills (Alca torda). Auk 116: 542– 544. Webster, M. S. 1997. Extreme sexual size dimorphism, sexual selection, and the foraging ecology of Montezuma Oropendolas. Auk 114: 570– 580. Winker, K., J. T. Klicka, and G. Voelker. 1996. Sexual size dimorphism in birds from southern Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Field Ornithology 67: 236– 251. Citing Literature Volume77, Issue3Summer 2006Pages 259-265 ReferencesRelatedInformation