Skip to main content
Log in

Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments?

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Males of many animals have more than a single exaggerated secondary sexual character, but inter-specific variability in the number of ornaments has never been explained. We examine three hypotheses that may account for the presence of multiple ornaments. First, the multiple message hypothesis proposes that each display reflects a single property of the overall quality of an animal. This is likely to be the case for ornaments that respond to condition on different time scales. Second, the redundant signal hypothesis suggests that each ornament gives a partial indication of condition. Females pay attention to several sex traits because in combination they provide a better estimate of general condition than does any single ornament. The redundant signal hypothesis predicts that (i) multiple ornaments should be particularly common among taxa with relatively uncostly and fine-tuned female choice, and (ii) females pay equal attention to the expression of all the secondary sex traits in order to obtain an estimate of overall male condition. Finally, the unreliable signal hypothesis argues that some ornaments are unreliable indicators of overall condition and are only maintained because they are relatively uncostly to produce and there is a weak female preference for them. This predicts that (i) multiple sexual ornaments should be particularly common in taxa with the most intense sexual selection (i.e. lekking and other polygynous taxa), and (ii) there should be more evidence for condition dependence in ornaments of species with single as opposed to multiple ornaments. Both the latter predictions are supported by data on feather ornaments in birds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson M (1980) Why are there so many threat displays? J Theor Biol 86:773–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke JM, McKenzie JA (1987) Developmental stability of insecticide resistant phenotypes in blowfly; a result of canalizing natural selection. Nature 325:345–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans MR, Hatchwell BJ (1992) An experimental study of male adornment in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird. I. The role of pectoral tufts in territorial. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:413–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans MR, Thomas ALR (1992) The aerodynamic and mechanical consequences of elongated tails in the scarlet tufted malachite sunbird: Measuring the cost of a handicap. Anim Behav 43:337–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 44:475–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1986) Instability and cycling of two competing hosts with two parasites. In: Karlin S, Nevo A (eds) Evolutionary processes and theory. Academic Press, New York, pp 645–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey P, Pagel M (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick AV (1988) Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. Am Nat 132:267–276

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Höglund J (1989) Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: a comparative analysis. Am Nat 134:72–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M (1987) The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals. In: Bradbury J, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alterantives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodric-Brown A (1989) Dietary carotenoids and male mating success in the guppy: an environmental component to female choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:393–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:303–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725

    Google Scholar 

  • Leamy L, Atchley W (1985) Directional selection and developmental stability: Evidence from fluctuating asymmetry of morphometric characters in rats. Growth 49:8–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig W (1932) Das Rechts-Links-Problem im Tierreich und beim Menschen. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1990) Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Anim Behav 40:1185–1187

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1991) Sexual ornaments size and the cost of fluctuating asymmetry. Proc Roy Soc London B 243:59–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1992a) Frequency of female copulations with multiple males and sexual selection. Am Nat 139:1089–1101

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1992b) Female swallow preference for symmetric male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1993) Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual ornaments predict female choice. J Evol Biol (in press)

  • Moller AP, Höglund J (1991) Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in avian feather ornaments: implications for models of sexual selection. Proc R Soc London B 245:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993a) Punctuated equilibria or gradual evolution: Fluctuating asymmetry and variation in the rate of evolution. J Theor Biol (in press)

  • Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993b) Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Genetica (in press)

  • Palmer AR, Strobeck C (1986) Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, pattern. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:391–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons PA (1990) Fluctuating asymmetry: an epigenetic measure of stress. Biol Rev 65:131–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomiankowski A (1987) The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol 128, 195–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422–1430

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA (1977) How animals communicate. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Silbley CG, Ahlquist JE (1990) Phylogeny and classification of birds. Yale University Press, New Haven London

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME (1982) Allometric variation. 1. The theory and some consequences. Am Nat 120:751–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Williams GC (1982) The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor Popul Biol 22:392–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoday JM (1958) Homeostasis in a selection experiment. Heredity 12:401–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas ALR (1992) On the aerodynamics of bird tails. Phil Trans R Soc B (in press)

  • Tinbergen N (1959) Comparative studies of the behaviour of gulls (Laridae): a progress report. Behavior 15:1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen L (1962) A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16:125–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuk M, Thornhill R, Ligon JD (1990) Parasites and mate choice in red jungle fowl. Am Zool 30:235–244

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Correspondence to: A. Pomiankowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moller, A., Pomiankowski, A. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32, 167–176 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173774

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173774

Keywords

Navigation