Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 12, pp 2197–2208 | Cite as

Same-sex pair-bonds are equivalent to male–female bonds in a life-long socially monogamous songbird

  • Julie E. Elie
  • Nicolas Mathevon
  • Clémentine Vignal
Original Paper

Abstract

Same-sex sexual behaviors are well documented in both captive and wild animals. In monogamous species, these behaviors are often exclusive, each individual having only one same-sex partner. A bias in sex ratio has been proposed as a social context yielding same-sex pair-bonding, but this hypothesis has rarely been tested. Focusing on a life-long pair-bonding songbird, the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata, we tested whether same-sex pairing results from a shortage of individuals of the opposite sex. By experimentally skewing the sex ratio towards members of one sex, we observed a greater proportion of same-sex pair-bonds of that sex. Moreover, we assessed whether the quality and stability of social interactions were equivalent in same-sex and male–female pairs. Male–male and female–female same-sex bonds display the same behavioral characteristics as male–female ones: they are intense, highly selective, and stable affinitive relationships involving the same behavioral displays already described in wild birds. Moreover, same-sex male bonds were sufficiently strong not to split up when individuals were given the opportunity to reproduce with females. Because the pair-bond in socially monogamous species represents a partnership that may give advantages for survival (e.g., resources defense, fighting against predators, etc.), we propose that same-sex pairing in the zebra finch may result from the pressure to find a social partner.

Keywords

Animal homosexuality Zebra finch Same-sex sexual behavior Sex ratio Partnership Pair-bond Social network 

Abbreviations

AP

Allopreening bouts

CB

Events of clumping and greeting beak fence

CC

Courtship and copulation

DS

Directed songs

IRS

Index of relationship strength

IRSd

Daily value of I RS

IRStot

Value of I RS computed over the whole experiment

NS

Nest sharing

OV

Outcome variable

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors warmly thank Colette Bouchut and Nicolas Boyer for all the technical support in the ENES laboratory. We are also grateful to Hédi A. Soula for help with analysis of the data with R. Finally, thanks to Mylène M Mariette, who kindly accepted to read and correct this manuscript.

This study is funded by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (A.N.R., project “BIRDS’VOICE”) and Saint-Etienne Métropole. C.V. is supported by a Young Investigator Sabbatical of the Université de Saint-Etienne. N.M. is supported by the Institut universitaire de France and was funded during part of this study by the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California, Berkeley (Visiting Miller Professorship). J.E.E. is supported by the French Ministry of Research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Adkins-Regan E (2002) Development of sexual partner preference in the zebra finch: a socially monogamous, pair-bonding animal. Arch Sex Behav 31(1):27–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adkins-Regan E (2009) Hormones and sexual differenciation of avian social behavior. Dev Neurosci 31(4):342–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adkins-Regan E (2011) Neuroendocrine contributions to sexual partner preference in birds. Front Neuroendocrinol 32(2):155–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adkins-Regan E, Krakauer A (2000) Removal of adult males from the rearing environment increases preference for same-sex partners in the zebra finch. Anim Behav 60(1):47–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagemihl B (1999) Biological exuberance: animal homosexuality and natural diversity. Bagemihl, Bruce edn. St. Martin’s Press, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey NW, Zuk M (2009) Same-sex sexual behaviour and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24(8):439–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black JM (1996) Pair bonds and partnerships. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds. The study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  8. Butterfield PA (1970) The pair bond in the zebra finch. In: Crook JH (ed) Social behaviour in birds and mammals. Academic Press, London, pp 249–278Google Scholar
  9. Butts CT, Handcock MS, Hunter DR (2008) Network: classes for relational data. R package version 1.4-1. Irvine, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Clayton NS (1990) Mate choice and pair formation in timor and australian mainland zebra finches. Anim Behav 39(3):474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conover MR, Hunt GL Jr (1984a) Experimental evidence that female–female pairs in gulls result from a shortage of breeding males. Condor 86:472–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conover MR, Hunt GL Jr (1984b) Female–female pairing and sex ratios in gulls: an historical perspective. Wilson Bull 96:619–625Google Scholar
  13. Elie JE, Mariette MM, Soula HA, Griffith SC, Mathevon N, Vignal C (2010) Vocal communication at nest between mates in wild zebra finches: a private vocal duet. Anim Behav 80:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gavrilets S, Rice WR (2006) Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions. Proc Royal Soc B 273:3031–3038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffith SC, Holleley CE, Mariette MM, Pryke SR, Svedin N (2010) Low level of extrapair parentage in wild zebra finches. Anim Behav 79:251–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall ML (2004) A review of hypotheses for the functions of avian duetting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt GL Jr, Hunt MW (1977) Female–female pairing in western gulls (Larus occidentalis) in Southern California. Science 196:1466–1467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt GL Jr, Wingfield JC, Newman A, Farner DS (1980) Sex ratio of western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, California. Auk 97:473–479Google Scholar
  19. King CE (2006) Pink flamingos: atypical partnerships and sexual activity in colonially breeding birds. In: Sommer V, Vasey PL (eds) Homosexual behaviour in animals. An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 77–106Google Scholar
  20. Kotrschal K, Hemetsberger J, Weiss BM (2006) Making the best of a bad situation: homosociality in male greylag geese. In: Sommer V, Vasey PL (eds) Homosexual behaviour in animals. An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 45–76Google Scholar
  21. Kudo H, Dunbar RIM (2001) Neocortex size and social network size in primates. Anim Behav 61:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacFarlane GR, Blomberg SP, Kaplan G, Rogers LJ (2007) Same-sex sexual behavior in birds: expression is related to social mating system and state of development at hatching. Behav Ecol 18:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacFarlane GR, Blomberg SP, Vasey PL (2010) Homosexual behaviour in birds: frequency of expression is related to parental care disparity between the sexes. Anim Behav 80:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McComb K, Moss C, Sayialel S, Baker L (2000) Unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition in african elephants. Anim Behav 59:1103–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGraw KJ, Hill GE (1999) Induced homosexual behaviour in male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus): the “Prisoner effect”. Ethol Ecol Evol 11:197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris D (1954) The reproductive behavior of the zebra finch (Poephila guttata) with special reference to pseudofemale behaviour and displacement activities. Behaviour 7:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pincemy G, Dobson FS, Jouventin P (2010) Homosexual mating displays in penguins. Ethology 116:1210–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poiani A (2010) Animal homosexuality: a biosocial perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  30. Reichard UH, Boesch C (2003) Monogamy. Mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans and other mammals. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Roselli CE, Stormshak F (2009) Prenatal programming of sexual partner preference: the ram model. J Neuroendocrinol 21(4):359–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sommer V, Vasey PL (2006) Homosexual behaviour in animals. An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Gossum H, De Bruyn L, Stoks R (2005) Reversible switches between male–male and male–female mating behaviour by male damselflies. Biol Lett 1:268–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Schaik CP, Aureli F (2000) The natural history of valuable relationships in primates. In: Aureli F, de Waal FBM (eds) Natural conflict resolution. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 307–333Google Scholar
  35. Vasey PL, Sommer V (2006) Homosexual behaviour in animals: topics, hypotheses and research trajectories. In: Sommer V, Vasey PL (eds) Homosexual behaviour in animals. An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 3–42Google Scholar
  36. Villella A, Hall JC (2008) Neurogenetics of courtship and mating in Drosophila. Adv Genet 62:67–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitehead H, Dufault S (1999) Techniques for analyzing vertebrate social structure using identified individuals: review and recommendations. Adv Stud Anim Behav 28:33–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Young LC, Zaun BJ, VanderWerf EA (2010) Successful same-sex pairing in laysan albatross. Biol Lett 4:323–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zann R, Runciman D (1994) Survivorship, dispersal and sex ratios of zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata in Southeast Australia. Ibis 136:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zann R, Runciman D (2003) Primary sex ratios in zebra finches: no evidence for adaptive manipulation in wild and semi-domesticated populations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zann RA (1996) The zebra finch: a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuk M (2006) Family values in black and white. Nature 439:917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie E. Elie
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nicolas Mathevon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Clémentine Vignal
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Équipe de Neuro-Éthologie Sensorielle/CNPSUniversité de Saint-Etienne, CNRS UMR 8195Saint-EtienneFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Neurosciences Paris Sud, CNRS UMR 8195Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueOrsayFrance
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations