0 1 2 3
F re q u e n c y
0 10 20 30 40
50 Expected
Observed
Figure. 6.2. Primary brood sex ratios are independent of (a) number of subordinates in the group, (b) territory quality (total m2 pandanus cover), (c) seasonal food abundance (average monthly number of arthropods) and (d) pre-breeding rainfall (cumulative rainfall over 24 weeks before egg-laying (for details see Methods). Dot sizes in (a) reflect number of broods, ranging from one (smallest dots) to 16 (largest dot) broods.
Pre-breeding rainfall (mm)
Discussion
The observed patterns of primary offspring sex ratio did not support any of the tested hypotheses of adaptive sex-ratio adjustment in M. coronatus (Table 6.1). This is surprising because there are several potential benefits that could drive the evolution of sex-ratio manipulation, and sample sizes are relative large (see Ewen et al. 2004). Potential constraints on the evolution of sex-ratio manipulation, and lack of support for current hypotheses, are discussed below.
Helper-repayment and competition
In M. coronatus, females in pairs or small groups did not produce more males (Fig. 6.2a), though male helpers are more common than female helpers (on average around 0.7 male vs. 0.3 female helpers per group). This result is different from some cooperatively breeding species (e.g., Griffin et al. 2005, Komdeur et al. 1997), but very similar to three other fairy-wrens (M. cyaneus, Cockburn & Double 2008; M. leucopterus, Rathburn & Montgomerie 2005; M.
melanocephalus, Varian-Ramos 2010). In at least one of those species, M.
melanocephalus, helpers provide no obvious fitness advantage (Varian-Ramos et al. 2010), consistent with the helper-repayment hypothesis (Griffin et al.
2005). Helper M. coronatus however, have considerable positive effects on fitness of breeders, perhaps much larger than in its congeners (see Kingma et al. 2010; Figs. 5.2 and 5.3). By assisting in nestling feeding, helpers enhance fledging success and enable breeders to reduce their feeding rate, which directly affects survival rates of breeders (Kingma et al. 2010; Fig. 5.4).
Nonetheless, despite clear predictions that especially unassisted females should produce more males (Griffin et al. 2005), our results did not support the helper-repayment hypothesis.
One reason why females do not produce more offspring of the more helpful sex may be that competition between group members outweighs the overall benefits (helper-competition hypothesis; Clark 1978, Komdeur et al.
1997, Julliard 2000; Table 6.1). We did however not find such a pattern:
although groups are on average larger in better territories in M. coronatus, females did not produce more males when territories could probably maintain more subordinates, or produce more females when territories were presumably saturated (Fig. 6.2b).
Although helping behaviour is often sex-biased, fitness returns may differ only marginally between males and females. In M. coronatus, helping is male-biased whereas dispersal is female-biased, but females can still stay, help and compete for resources in their natal group. It is unclear what level of sex-bias in those features is needed for selection to favour sex-biased offspring production. In fact, especially in species with multiple breeding attempts per year, like M. coronatus, helping by females may be sufficient to reduce selection on sex-determination mechanisms. Hence, the magnitude of sex-bias in philopatry and helping behaviour is important to consider in empirical and comparative studies of sex allocation in cooperative breeders, to reveal the ultimate general utility of the helper-repayment hypothesis.
The costly sex, environmental conditions, and future benefits
As opposed to a large number of studies that show a strong effect of food abundance on sex ratio (e.g., Byholm et al. 2002, Clout et al. 2002, Kilner 1998, Korpimäki et al. 2000, Ligon & Ligon 1990, Rubenstein 2007b), we did not find evidence that variation in food abundance affects sex ratios in M.
coronatus (Fig. 6.2c,d). This is surprising, considering that current theory predicts such a relationship (Table 6.1), especially in species that can breed under highly variable seasonal conditions (see Rubenstein 2007b).
Male nestling M. coronatus are significantly larger, and therefore perhaps more costly to raise than females (e.g., Andersson et al. 1993, Fiala &
Congdon 1983; but see below). Moreover, larger nestlings could be more sensitive to food shortage (Korpimäki et al. 2000, Torres & Drummond 1999), an additional reason why males should mainly be produced at peak food abundance. Nonetheless, our results did not support the costly-sex hypothesis (see Table 6.1). Nestling sexual size-dimorphism in M. coronatus (around 5%) could be too small to substantially increase production costs, so that selection on ratio manipulation is limited (see also Rösner et al. 2009). Indeed, sex-ratio adjustment to seasonal food abundance is most obvious in species with large sexual dimorphism in body mass (e.g., 23% dimorphism in common grackles Quiscalus quiscula (Howe 1977), 24-42% in European kestrels Falco tinnunculus (Dijkstra et al. 1988, 1990), 47% in Peregrine falcons Falco peregrinus (Olsen & Cockburn 1991), ~20% in tawny owls Strix aluco (Appleby et al. 1997, Sunde et al. 2003, but see Wiebe & Bortolotti 1992:
dimorphism 5-13% in American kestrels Falco sparverius). In agreement with relatively low sexual dimorphism, we did not find evidence for clear
sex-differences in production costs in M. coronatus, as broods with more males were not fed more often. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that males may need more food at earlier nestling ages or require higher-quality food. Therefore, additional work is needed to determine what magnitude of sex-differences in production costs constitutes a sufficient selective force for sex-ratio manipulation (see Table 6.1).
As an alternative, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis predicts that females should produce offspring of the sex with greatest variance in reproductive success under good conditions (Trivers & Willard 1973, Table 6.1). We did not find support for this hypothesis, as large variation in food abundance does not affect offspring sex ratio. However, we cannot exclude that a central assumption of this hypothesis is not upheld. Although females may benefit more than males from being larger or in better condition for dispersal and competition over breeding positions, and skew in cooperatively breeding birds is generally larger among females (Hauber & Lacey 2005, Rubenstein 2007b, Rubenstein & Lovette 2009), we cannot identify reproductive skew among males and females at this stage. In fact, although the population sex ratio is slightly male-biased (proportion males = 0.57) indicating higher female than male mortality, reproductive skew may be rather similar among sexes in this long-lived, genetically nearly monogamous species (Kingma et al. 2009;
chapter 2). Thus, lack of skew in sex ratio could reflect the lack of sex differences in effects of early development on future success.
Implications
In M. coronatus, we did not find any support for the main hypotheses for adaptive primary sex-ratio manipulation, supporting the general view that these hypotheses are not universally applicable to birds (Charnov 1982, Clutton-Brock 1986, Cockburn et al. 2002, Komdeur & Pen 2002, Krackow 1999, West et al. 2005). Although effects of different selection pressures could be concealed when they act simultaneously in opposite direction, the most plausible explanation for this result is that the sex-bias in long-term benefits is too small for adaptive mechanisms of offspring sex-ratio adjustment to have evolved in M. coronatus. This idea may encourage future empirical and comparative studies to focus on the magnitude of long-term fitness consequences required to drive the evolution of sex-ratio adjustment (e.g., the magnitude of sex bias in helping or condition-dependent future success). Such an approach is conspicuously limited so far, especially in irregularly breeding
species (see e.g., Appleby et al. 1997, Bradbury et al. 1997, Komdeur & Pen 2002, Komdeur et al. 1997). Hence, negative results form important pieces of the puzzle of whether and how birds adjust sex ratios, and publishing such results is important to determine the general utility of different hypotheses of sex-ratio manipulation in birds (see e.g., Cockburn & Double 2008, Ewen et al. 2004, Griffin et al. 2005, West et al. 2002, West & Sheldon 2002).
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to S. Legge, S. Murphy and other staff at Mornington Wildlife Sanctuary, to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy for logistical support, and to our team of field assistants for their hard work in the field. We thank E. Fricke for molecular sexing, J. Heathcote for collecting rainfall data, K. Delhey for discussion, and C. Brown and two anonymous reviewers for comments. All fieldwork was performed with permission from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology Animal Ethics Committee, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, the Western Australia Department of Conservation and Land Management (licences BB002178 and BB002311), and the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme (Authority 2230 and 2073).
The research was funded by the ‘Minerva Sonderprogramm zur Förderung hervorragender Wissenschaftlerinnen’ of the Max Planck Society (to AP).