Why are female birds ornamented?

By T. Amundsen. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000

641 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Law, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8eca78b86642676df102385e06db720173d93e36

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Law

1. B. Stutchbury
2. G. Tomás
3. Roxana Torres
4. G. E. Hill
5. J. Moreno
6. J. Morales
7. Jodie M. Jawor
8. J. Komdeur

In Political Science and International Relations

1. B. Stutchbury
2. G. Tomás
3. Roxana Torres
4. G. E. Hill
5. J. Moreno
6. J. Morales
7. Jodie M. Jawor
8. J. Komdeur

Citations in the corpus

• NEST WEIGHT AND FEMALE HEALTH IN THE BLUE TIT (CYANISTES CAERULEUS) (2006, background): “The possibility that females can signal their quality to their mates is a neglected topic in the study of sexual selection (Amundsen 2000), but increasing evidence is proving that it could be more widespread than previously believed, even when applied to ornaments external to the females themselves…”
• Mutual ornamentation, age and reproductive performance in the European starling (2005, background): “Indeed, in birds at least, empirical evidence for this explanation is rare (e.g., Roulin et al., 2001), and the phylogenetic evidence suggests that evolutionary changes be-tween sexual monomorphism and dimorphism are relatively unconstrained (Amundsen, 2000a,b).”
• Sexual selection on aggressiveness in females: evidence from an experimental test with tree swallows (2008, neutral): “Previous work on sexually selected traits in females has focused on the function of ornamentation and vocalization (Ritchison 1983; Langmore 1998; Amundsen 2000; Amundsen & Parn 2006); less attention has been given to the function of female traits used in aggressive interactions, despite the prevale”
• The evolution of mutual ornamentation (2007, background): “In contrast to mutual mate choice, mate competition in both sexes has received little attention (Amundsen 2000b).”
• Territory defence in tropical birds: are females as aggressive as males? (2005, background): “Female territory defence against other females is relatively under-studied in birds because it is more subtle and therefore difficult to observe (Amundsen 2000).”
• Male Drosophila melanogaster adjust ejaculate size based on female mating status, fecundity, and age (2011, background): “…(2011)] Whereas males are generally considered to be promiscuousand nondiscriminating in mate choice, numerous studies of diverse taxa have revealed that males often exhibit a greater propensity to mate with higher quality females (reviewed in Andersson 1994; Amundsen 2000; Bonduriansky 2001).”
• Does mutual sexual selection explain the evolution of head crests in pterosaurs and dinosaurs (2012, background): “However, in extant species including birds, it is common for partial expression of ‘male’ ornamentation to be present in both sexes (Amundsen 2000; Kraaijeveld et al. 2007), and clear bimodal distributions are inevitably hard to”
• Armaments and ornaments in the rock sparrow: a possible dual utility of a carotenoid-based feather signal (2006, background): “2005), suggesting that this carotenoidbased ornament is mutually sexually selected (Amundsen 2000; MacDougall and Montgomerie 2003).”
• Males prefer ornamented females: a field experiment of male choice in the rock sparrow (2005, neutral): “Furthermore, early breeding is associated with higher reproductive success and, at the beginning of the breeding season, males may not be selective with respect to female phenotype, as evidenced in other field studies (e.g. Hill 1993; Cuervo et al. 1996; Amundsen 2000).”
• Multiple ornaments correlate with aspects of condition and behaviour in female northern cardinals, Cardinalis cardinalis (2004, background): “…of condition, that males assess female ornamentation, and thatmales prefer more ornamented females as mates (Hunt et al. 1999; Roulin 1999; Amundsen 2000; Amundsen & Forsgren 2001; Berglund & Rosenqvist 2001a; Domb & Pagel 2001; Reichert et al. 2002; Romero-Pujante et al. 2002; Weiss…”
• Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches (2001, background): “However, it is widely acknowledged that, in situations where females vary substantially in fecundity and/or where males provide breeding resources or parental care, males are also expected to be choosy (Burley 1977; Jones & Hunter 1993; Andersson 1994; Amundsen 2000).”
• Carotenoid-derived ornaments reflect parental quality in male and female yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes) (2003, background): “Whether the maintenance of female ornamentation proceeds from a genetically correlated response to selection on males or from direct sexual selection is not mutually exclusive (Amundsen 2000).”
• Male preference for female foot colour in the socially monogamous blue-footed booby, Sula nebouxii (2005, background): “However, the reasons why females of some species express similar extravagant ornamental structures or colours are poorly documented (Amundsen 2000; Bounduriansky 2001).”
• MELANIN ORNAMENTS, HONESTY, AND SEXUAL SELECTION (2003, background): “First, Amundsen (2000) reviewed studies on ornaments in female birds and concluded that those frequently function both in mate choice and in intrasexual competition.”