IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i2p271-277..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Female house sparrows prefer big males with a large white wing bar and fewer feather holes caused by chewing lice

Author

Listed:
  • Gregorio Moreno-Rueda
  • Herbert Hoi

Abstract

Males frequently signal their resistance against parasites by elaborate ornaments. By mating with more ornamented males, females may choose less parasitized partners, and benefit by reducing the probability of contagion of parasites with direct transmission. Chewing lice (order Phthiraptera) are parasites of birds that considerably harm hosts, even decreasing survival. Previous studies showed that male house sparrows (Passer domesticus) can signal resistance against chewing lice by the size of the white wing bar, with more resistant birds having a larger bar. Here, in a mate-choice experiment, 16 female sparrows were presented to 16 dyads of males having similar initial wing bar sizes. In each dyad, the wing bar was experimentally reduced in a randomly selected male. Female house sparrows chose males with larger wing bars. Nevertheless, females also preferred males with less feather holes caused by chewing lice and larger males. By choosing males with larger wing bars, females choose males with larger uropygial glands, an organ involved in the resistance against chewing lice in this species. Therefore, white patches, which are widespread in birds, might be used by females in order to evaluate male resistance against chewing lice.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregorio Moreno-Rueda & Herbert Hoi, 2012. "Female house sparrows prefer big males with a large white wing bar and fewer feather holes caused by chewing lice," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 271-277.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:271-277.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arr182
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno A. Walther & Dale H. Clayton, 2005. "Elaborate ornaments are costly to maintain: evidence for high maintenance handicaps," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 89-95, January.
    2. Romain Piault & Julien Gasparini & Pierre Bize & Mariane Paulet & Kevin J. McGraw & Alexandre Roulin, 2008. "Experimental support for the makeup hypothesis in nestling tawny owls (Strix aluco)," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(4), pages 703-709.
    3. Sveinn Are Hanssen & Jan O. Bustnes & Torkild Tveraa & Dennis Hasselquist & Øystein Varpe & John-André Henden, 2009. "Individual quality and reproductive effort mirrored in white wing plumage in both sexes of south polar skuas," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(5), pages 961-966.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Nolazco & Kaspar Delhey & Shinichi Nakagawa & Anne Peters, 2022. "Ornaments are equally informative in male and female birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Sarah Guindre-Parker & H. Grant Gilchrist & Sarah Baldo & Stephanie M. Doucet & Oliver P. Love, 2013. "Multiple achromatic plumage ornaments signal to multiple receivers," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(3), pages 672-682.
    3. Juan José Soler & Ester Martínez-Renau & Manuel Azcárate-García & Cristina Ruiz-Castellano & José Martín & Manuel Martín-Vivaldi, 2022. "Made-up mouths with preen oil reveal genetic and phenotypic conditions of starling nestlings," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(3), pages 494-503.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:271-277.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.