Abstract
EXTRA-PAIR copulations (EPCs) seem to be one of the most widespread alternative reproductive behaviours by which male birds can increase their fitness1,2. In many species females actively solicit or freely engage in EPCs3–5, which suggests that they benefit from them. Of the eight hypothetical benefits proposed2,6, the most likely are genetic2. Often females engage in EPCs with more dominant males3,7 or with males with more elaborate ornaments8,9. In species in which paternity was assigned, extra-pair young were divided asymmetrically between males10–12. Here, combining detailed behavioural work with DNA-fingerprinting of an entire population, we present evidence that such an asymmetry is indeed caused by female behaviour, and that 'attractive' males do not suffer lost paternity, survive better and recruit more young. Our results support the genetic quality hypothesis.
This is a preview of subscription content
Access options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
$199.00
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
$32.00
All prices are NET prices.
References
Trivers, R. L. in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (ed. Campbell, B. G.) 136–179 (Aldine, Chicago, 1972).
Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. P. Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences (Academic, London, 1992).
Smith, S. M. Behaviour 107, 15–23 (1988).
Birkhead, T. R. et al. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 315–324 (1990).
Møller, A. P. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 23–29 (1990).
Westneat, D. F. et al. Curr. Ornithol. 7, 331–369 (1990).
Bollinger, E. K. & Gavin, T. A. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 1–7 (1991).
Møller, A. P. Nature 332, 640–642 (1988).
Smith, H. G. & Montgomerie, R. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28, 195–201 (1991).
Gibbs, H. L. et al. Science 250, 1394–1397 (1990).
Sherman, P. W. & Morton, M. L. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22, 413–420 (1988).
Westneat, D. F. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 67–76 (1990).
Dhondt, A. A. in Lifetime Reproduction in Birds (ed. Newton, I. A.) 15–33 (Academic, London, 1989).
Dhondt, A. A. Ibis 129, 327–334 (1987).
Birkhead, T. R. et al. Nature 334, 60–62 (1988).
McCullock, P. & Nelder, J. A. Generalized Linear Models (Chapman and Hall, New York, 1983).
Møller, A. P. Behaviour 100, 92–104 (1987).
Berneman, Z. N. et al. FEBS Lett. 255, 226–230 (1989).
Armour, J. A. L. et al. Genomics 8, 501–512 (1990).
Bruford, M. W. et al. in Molecular Genetic Analysis of Populations: A Practical Approach (ed. Hoebul, A. R.) 225–269 (IRL, Oxford, 1992).
Feinberg, A. P. & Vogelstein, B. Analyt. Biochem. 132, 6–13 (1983).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kempenaers, B., Verheyen, G., den Broeck, M. et al. Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357, 494–496 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/357494a0
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/357494a0
Further reading
-
Chemical analysis reveals sex differences in the preen gland secretion of breeding Blue Tits
Journal of Ornithology (2022)
-
Polygyny is linked to accelerated birdsong evolution but not to larger song repertoires
Nature Communications (2019)
-
An experimental increase in female mass during the fertile phase leads to higher levels of extra-pair paternity in pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (2019)
-
Extra-pair paternity patterns in European barn swallows Hirundo rustica are best explained by male and female age rather than male ornamentation
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (2019)
-
Do ornaments, arrival date, and sperm size influence mating and paternity success in the collared flycatcher?
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (2017)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.