Release from ecological constraint erases sex difference in social ornamentation

Original Article

Abstract

Sex differences in animal ornamentation are thought largely genetically fixed due to stronger sexual selection on males of species with conventional sex roles. But, other types of sex differences are not genetically fixed. For example, several differences in human social behavior result instead from sociocultural or economic constraints on women. Since gregarious animals use ornamentation for various social functions, perhaps some of their sex differences are, similarly to human behavior, due to social coercion or ecological constraint (their closest equivalents to human social and economic constraints, respectively). We found sex differences in ornamentation that disappear plastically in a social species with conventional sex roles. The red bill of common waxbills (Estrilda astrild) is on average more saturated in males, but in our experiment female bill color correlated with night temperature, an important energetic stressor, suggesting that sexual dichromatism disappears when ecological conditions are favorable to females. Female ornamentation may be more adversely affected by ecology because of their life history that requires balancing investment in ornamentation with maintaining reproductive condition. Manipulation of stress-related physiology (ACTH challenge) suggests that this effect was not mediated by stress mechanisms. Social coercion appears to not explain sexual dichromatism: males were not more aggressive than females, aggressiveness was not related to bill color, and manipulation of reproductive axis’ physiology (GnRH challenge, which in many species mediates aggressiveness) did not increase bill color. Our results show parallels to the plastic sex differences of humans in social animals and suggest that studying their ecological vs. social causes provides a biological backdrop for understanding the human case as well.

Significance statement

Many sex differences in human social behavior result from economic or sociocultural constraints on women, while sex differences in the ornamentation of animals with conventional sex roles are thought largely genetically fixed. We show that a sex difference in ornamentation—the redder bills of male than female common waxbills—disappears plastically in an animal with conventional sex roles due to, in part, changes in female ornamentation. Social coercion did not explain reduced female ornamentation: aggressiveness did not predict bill color, and males were not dominant over females. Instead, female bill color was reduced during colder weather, perhaps because females under energetic stress need to balance investment in social ornamentation vs. maintaining reproductive condition. Similarly to humans, some sex differences of gregarious animals may be due to females requiring appropriate conditions to express their full social potential.

Keywords

Plastic sex differences Ecological constraint Social coercion Color ornamentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments that much improved this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2486_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (97 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 96.7 kb)
265_2018_2486_MOESM2_ESM.xls (94 kb)
ESM 2 (XLS 94 kb)

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardia DR, Broughton DR, Gleicher MJ (2010) Short-term exposure to testosterone propionate leads to rapid bill color and dominance changes in zebra finches. Horm Behav 58:526–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakken GS, Murphy MT, Erskine DJ (1991) The effect of wind and air temperature on metabolism and evaporative water loss rates of dark-eyed juncos, Junco hyemalis: a standard operative temperature scale. Physiol Biochem Zool 64:1023–1049Google Scholar
  4. Burley NT, Price DK, Zann RA (1992) Bill color, reproduction and condition effects in wild and domesticated zebra finches. Auk 109:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler MW, Toomey MB, McGraw KJ (2011) How many color metrics do we need? Evaluating how different color-scoring procedures explain carotenoid pigment content in avian bare-part and plumage ornaments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardoso GC, Gomes ACR (2015a) Using reflectance ratios to study animal coloration. Evol Biol 42:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardoso GC, Gomes ACR (2015b) Erratum to: using reflectance ratios to study animal coloration. Evol Biol 42:511–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardoso GC, Batalha HR, Reis S, Lopes RJ (2014a) Increasing sexual ornamentation during a biological invasion. Behav Ecol 25:916–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardoso GC, Leitão AV, Funghi C, Batalha HR, Lopes RJ, Mota PG (2014b) Similar preferences for ornamentation in opposite- and same-sex choice experiments. J Evol Biol 27:2798–2806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clement P, Harris A, Davies J (1993) Finches and sparrows. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Huchard E (2013) Social competition and selection in males and females. Philos Trans R Soc B 368:20130074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeVries MS, Holbrook AL, Winters CP, Jawor JM (2011) Non-breeding gonadal testosterone production of male and female northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) following GnRH challenge. Gen Comp Endocrinol 174:370–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dey CJ, Valcu M, Kempenaers B, Dale J (2015) Carotenoid-based bill coloration functions as a social, not sexual, signal in songbirds (Aves: Passeriformes). J Evol Biol 28:250–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly AH, Wood W (2013) The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:340–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Enquist M (1985) Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Anim Behav 33:1152–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J (2004) Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429:551–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Funghi C, Leitão AV, Ferreira AC, Mota PG, Cardoso GC (2015) Social dominance in a gregarious bird is related to body size but not to standard personality assays. Ethology 121:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gautier P, Barroca M, Bertrand S, Eraud C, Gaillard M, Hamman M, Faivre B (2008) The presence of females modulates the expression of a carotenoid-based sexual signal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1159–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gavasa S, Silva AC, Gonzalez E, Molina J, Stoddard PK (2012) Social competition masculinizes the communication signals of female electric fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1057–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gomes ACR, Sorenson MD, Cardoso GC (2016) Speciation is associated with changing ornamentation rather than stronger sexual selection. Evolution 70:2823–2838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Goymann W, Möstl E, Gwinner E (2002) Non-invasive methods to measure androgen metabolites in excrements of European stonechats, Saxicola torquata rubicola. Gen Comp Endocrinol 129:80–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gwynne DT, Simmons LW (1990) Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346:172–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hau M, Wikelski M, Soma KK, Wingfield JC (2000) Testosterone and year-round territorial aggression in a tropical bird. Gen Comp Endocrinol 117:20–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill GE (2000) Energetic constraints on expression of carotenoid-based plumage coloration. J Avian Biol 31:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill GE, Johnson JD (2012) The vitamin A-redox hypothesis: a biochemical basis for honest signaling via carotenoid pigmentation. Am Nat 180:E127–E150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill GE, Montgomerie R (1994) Plumage colour signals nutritional condition in the house finch. Proc R Soc Lond B 258:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hill GE, Hood WR, Huggins KA (2009) A multifactorial test of the effects of carotenoid access, food intake and parasite load on the production of ornamental feathers and bill coloration in American goldfinches. J Exp Biol 212:1225–1233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutchinson JMC, McNamara JM, Cuthill IC (1993) Song, sexual selection, starvation and strategic handicaps. Anim Behav 45:1153–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iverson ENK, Karubian J (2017) The role of bare parts in avian signaling. Auk 134:587–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jawor JM, Mcglothlin JW, Casto JM, Greives TJ, Snajdr EA, Bntley GE, Ketterson E (2006) Seasonal and individual variation in response to GnRH challenge in male dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Gen Comp Endocrinol 149:182–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jawor JM, Mcglothlin JW, Casto JM, Greives TJ, Snajdr EA, Bntley GE, Ketterson E (2007) Testosterone response to GnRH in a female songbird varies with stage of reproduction: implications for adult behaviour and maternal effects. Funct Ecol 21:767–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karubian J, Lindsay WR, Schwabl H, Webster MS (2011) Bill coloration, a flexible signal in a tropical passerine bird, is regulated by social environment and androgens. Anim Behav 81:795–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly R, Murphy TG, Tarvin KA, Burness G (2012) Carotenoid-based ornaments of female and male american goldfinches (Spinus tristis) show sex-specific correlations with immune function and metabolic rate. Physiol Biochem Zool 85:348–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Komdeur J (2007) The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim Behav 74:657–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laucht S, Kempenaers B, Dale J (2010) Bill color, not badge size, indicates testosterone-related information in house sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1461–1471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehikoinen E (1987) Seasonality of the daily weight cycle in wintering passerines and its consequences. Ornis Scand 18:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lyon BE, Montgomerie R (2012) Sexual selection is a form of social selection. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2266–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marques CIJ, Batalha HR, Cardoso GC (2016) Signalling with a cryptic trait: the regularity of barred plumage in common waxbills. R Soc Open Sci 3:160195CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. McGraw KJ, Schuetz JG (2004) The evolution of carotenoid coloration in estrildid finches: a biochemical analysis. Comp Biochem Physiol B 139:45–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. McGraw KJ, Toomey MB (2010) Carotenoid accumulation in the tissues of zebra finches: predictors of integumentary pigmentation and implications for carotenoid allocation strategies. Physiol Biochem Zool 83:97–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. McGraw KJ, Hill GE, Parker RS (2005) The physiological costs of being colourful: nutritional control of carotenoid utilization in the American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Anim Behav 69:653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGraw KJ, Lee K, Lewin A (2011) The effect of capture-and-handling stress on carotenoid-based beak coloration in zebra finches. J Comp Physiol A 197:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1994) The evolution of plumage brightness in birds is related to extra pair paternity. Evolution 48:1089–1100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Montgomerie R (2006) Analyzing colors. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration, vol. 1: mechanisms and measurements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 90–147Google Scholar
  48. Mundy NI, Stapley J, Bennison C, Tucker R, Twyman H, Kim K, Burke T, Birkhead TR, Andersson S, Slate J (2016) Red carotenoid coloration in the zebra finch is controlled by a cytochrome p450 gene cluster. Curr Biol 26:1435–1440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy TG, Hernández-Muciño D, Osorio-Beristain M, Montgomerie R, Omland KE (2009a) Carotenoid-based status signaling by females in the tropical streak-backed oriole. Behav Ecol 20:1000–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murphy TG, Rosenthal MF, Montgomerie R, Tarvin KA (2009b) Female American goldfinches use carotenoid-based bill coloration to signal status. Behav Ecol 20:1348–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Observatório Astronómico de Lisboa (2014) Nascimento e Ocaso do Sol (Porto), http://oal.ul.pt
  52. Olson VA, Owens IPF (1998) Costly sexual signals: are carotenoids rare, risky or required? Trends Ecol Evol 13:510–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Pérez-Rodríguez L (2008) Carotenoid-based ornamentation as a dynamic but consistent individual trait. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Polo V, Bautista LM (2006) Daily routines of body mass gain in birds: 1. An exponential model. Anim Behav 72:503–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts ML, Ras E, Peters A (2009) Testosterone increases UV reflectance of sexually selected crown plumage in male blue tits. Behav Ecol 20:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Romero LM (2004) Physiological stress in ecology: lessons from biomedical research. Trends Ecol Evol 19:249–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Romero LM, Soma KK, Wingfield JC (1998) Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis changes allow seasonal modulation of corticosterone in a bird. Am J Phys 274:R1338–R1344Google Scholar
  58. Rosen RF, Tarvin KA (2006) Sexual signals of the male American goldfinch. Ethology 112:1008–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosenthal MF, Murphy TG, Darling N, Tarvin KA (2012) Ornamental bill color rapidly signals changing condition. J Avian Biol 43:553–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Santos ESA, Scheck D, Nakagawa S (2011) Dominance and plumage traits: meta-analysis and metaregression analysis. Anim Behav 82:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sanz-Aguilar A, Carrete M, Edelaar P, Potti J, Tella JL (2015) The empty temporal niche: breeding phenology differs between coexisting native and invasive birds. Biol Invasions 17:3275–3288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schull Q, Dobson FS, Stier A, Robin JP, Bize P, Viblanc VA (2016) Beak color dynamically signals changes in fasting status and parasite loads in king penguins. Behav Ecol 27:1684–1693Google Scholar
  63. Silva K, Vieira MN, Almada VC, Monteiro NM (2010) Reversing sex role reversal: compete only when you must. Anim Behav 79:885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simons MJP, Cohen A, Verhulst S (2012) What does carotenoid-dependent coloration tell? Plasma carotenoid level signals immune-competence and oxidative stress state in birds—a meta-analysis. PLoS One 7:e43088CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Számadó S (2011) Long-term commitment promotes honest status signalling. Anim Behav 82:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tarvin KA, Wong LJ, Lumpkin DC, Schroeder GM, D'Andrea D, Meade S, Rivers P, Murphy TG (2016) Dynamic status signal reflects outcome of social interactions, but not energetic stress. Front Ecol Evol 4:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tobias JA, Montgomerie R, Lyon BE (2012) The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2274–2293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. West-Eberhard MJ (1979) Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. PAm Philos Soc 123:222–234Google Scholar
  69. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Wharton AS (2012) The sociology of gender: an introduction to theory and research, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  71. Wingfield JC (1984) Influence of weather on reproduction. J Exp Zool 232(3):589–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Wingfield JC, O’Reilly KM, Astheimer LB (1995) Modulation of the adrenocortical responses to acute stress in arctic birds: a possible ecological basis. Integr Comp Biol 35:285–294Google Scholar
  73. Wingfield JC, Lynn SE, Soma KK (2001) Avoiding the “costs” of testosterone: ecological bases of hormone-behavior interactions. Brain Behav Evol 57:239–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Witter MS, Cuthill IC (1993) The ecological costs of avian fat storage. Philos Trans R Soc B 340:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIBIO—Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic ResourcesUniversity of PortoVairãoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Zoological InstituteUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Behavioural Ecology Group, Department of BiologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen ØDenmark

Personalised recommendations