Rohwer Sievert, Langston Nancy, Gori Dave
Burke Museum and Department of Zoology, University of Washington, P.O. Box 353010, Seattle, Washington, 98195.
Evolution. 1996 Oct;50(5):2049-2065. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03591.x.
We experimentally manipulated the strength of selection in the field on red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) to test hypotheses about contrasting selective forces that favor either large or small males in sexually size dimorphic birds. Selander (1972) argued that sexual selection favors larger males, while survival selection eventually stabilizes male size because larger males do not survive as well as smaller males during harsh winters. Searcy (1979a) proposed instead that sexual selection may be self limiting: male size might be stabilized not by overwinter mortality, but by breeding-season sexual selection that favors smaller males. Under conditions of energetic stress, smaller males should be able to display more and thus achieve higher reproductive success. Using feeders that provisioned males or females but not both, we produced conditions that mimicked the extremes of natural conditions. We found experimental support for the hypothesis that when food is abundant, sexual selection favors larger males. But even under conditions of severe energetic stress, smaller males did not gain larger harems, as the self-limiting hypothesis predicted. Larger males were more energetically stressed than smaller males, but in ways that affected their future reproductive output rather than their current reproductive performance. Stressed males that returned had smaller wings and tails than those that did not return; among returning stressed males, relative harem sizes were inversely related to wing and tail length. Thus, male body size may be stabilized not by survival costs during the non-breeding season, nor by energetic costs during the breeding season, but by costs of future reproduction that larger males pay for their increased breeding-season effort.
我们通过实验操纵了野外对红翅黑鹂(Agelaius phoeniceus)的选择强度,以检验关于在性别大小二态性鸟类中有利于大型或小型雄性的对比选择力的假设。塞兰德(1972年)认为性选择有利于较大的雄性,而生存选择最终会使雄性大小稳定下来,因为在严酷的冬季,较大的雄性不如较小的雄性存活得好。相反,塞尔西(1979年a)提出性选择可能是自我限制的:雄性大小可能不是由越冬死亡率稳定下来的,而是由有利于较小雄性的繁殖季节性选择稳定下来的。在能量压力条件下,较小的雄性应该能够展示得更多,从而获得更高的繁殖成功率。我们使用只给雄性或雌性提供食物而不是同时给两者提供食物的喂食器,创造了模拟自然条件极端情况的条件。我们发现实验支持了这样一个假设,即当食物丰富时,性选择有利于较大的雄性。但即使在严重的能量压力条件下,较小的雄性也没有像自我限制假设所预测的那样获得更大的妻妾群。较大的雄性比较小的雄性承受更大的能量压力,但这种方式影响的是它们未来的繁殖产出,而不是它们当前的繁殖表现。返回的受压力雄性的翅膀和尾巴比未返回的雄性更小;在返回的受压力雄性中,相对妻妾群大小与翅膀和尾巴长度呈负相关。因此,雄性体型可能不是由非繁殖季节的生存成本稳定下来的,也不是由繁殖季节的能量成本稳定下来的,而是由较大的雄性为其增加的繁殖季节努力所付出的未来繁殖成本稳定下来的。