Owens Ian P F
Department of Biological Sciences and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College at Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):283-93. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0929.
It has been argued recently that the combination of male-only parental care and classical polyandry in birds is the most interesting and yet the least understood of all avian breeding systems. Despite a huge number of hypotheses, careful comparative analyses have repeatedly failed to identify consistent ecological differences between species showing male-only care and closely related species showing other patterns of care. This has led to the suggestion that such analyses fail because the crucial differences are between ancient lineages rather than between closely related species. Here, therefore, I use comparisons between families to test three well-known hypotheses: that male-only care is associated with: (i) a low rate of fecundity; (ii) large egg size relative to female size; or (iii) female-biased opportunities for remating. Families showing male-only care do not differ from families showing female-only care with respect to rate of fecundity or relative egg size. There is, however, a significant difference between these two groups of families with respect to an index of remating opportunities, nesting density. Families showing female-only care nest at high density, while those showing male-only care nest at very low density. This is one of the first times a consistent ecological correlate has been identified for male-only care in birds. It suggests that female-only care arises (or persists) in families where remating opportunities are abundant for both sexes, whereas male-only care arises (or persists) in families where remating opportunities are rare for both sexes and particularly scarce for males. This in turn suggests that sex differences in remating opportunities are the key ecological factor in determining male-only care and classical polyandry in birds.
最近有人认为,鸟类中仅由雄性提供亲代抚育与经典的一妻多夫制相结合的繁殖系统,是所有鸟类繁殖系统中最有趣但也是最不为人所理解的。尽管有大量假说,但细致的比较分析多次未能找出仅由雄性提供抚育的物种与表现出其他抚育模式的近缘物种之间存在的一致生态差异。这导致有人提出,此类分析失败是因为关键差异存在于古老谱系之间,而非近缘物种之间。因此,在这里我通过科间比较来检验三个著名假说:仅由雄性提供抚育与以下因素相关:(i)繁殖力低;(ii)相对于雌性体型而言卵的尺寸大;或(iii)雌性偏向的再次交配机会。仅由雄性提供抚育的科在繁殖力或相对卵大小方面与仅由雌性提供抚育的科并无差异。然而,在这两组科之间,在一个再次交配机会指标——筑巢密度方面存在显著差异。仅由雌性提供抚育的科筑巢密度高,而仅由雄性提供抚育的科筑巢密度非常低。这是首次为鸟类中仅由雄性提供抚育确定了一个一致的生态关联因素。这表明仅由雌性提供抚育出现在(或持续存在于)两性都有丰富再次交配机会的科中,而仅由雄性提供抚育出现在(或持续存在于)两性再次交配机会都稀少且雄性尤为稀缺的科中。这进而表明,再次交配机会的性别差异是决定鸟类中仅由雄性提供抚育和经典一妻多夫制的关键生态因素。