4.2 Article

Sex and age differences in reflectance and biochemistry of carotenoid-based colour variation in the great tit Parus major

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 758-765

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01033.x

关键词

carotenoids; lutein; sexual and age-dimorphism; spectral reflectance; zeaxanthin

资金

  1. Helge Ax:son Johnsons stiftelse
  2. Swedish Research Council for Environment
  3. Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The plumage coloration in great tits (Parus major) is the subject of much behavioural and ecophysiological research, yet there is a lack of analyses of the natural colour variation and its mechanisms. We used reflectance spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography to explore individual, sexual and age-related variation in carotenoid coloration and pigmentation, paramount to the often presumed, but rarely substantiated, costs and 'honesty' of carotenoid displays. In adults, we found that sex was the strongest predictor of 'brightness' (higher in males) and of 'hue' (longer wavelength in females). There was no sex difference in 'carotenoid chroma' or carotenoid content of feathers which also was unrelated to adult age (1 or 2+ years) and condition. Similar patterns were revealed for nestlings. Regarding the biochemical 'signal content', 'carotenoid chroma', but not 'hue', was significantly related to the carotenoid content (lutein and zeaxanthin) of feathers. These results refute the previously assumed exaggeration of carotenoid pigmentation in male great tits, and question the condition-dependence of carotenoid coloration in this species. However, the sexual dimorphism in total reflectance or 'brightness', most likely due to melanins rather than carotenoids, may have implications for signalling or other adaptive explanations that need to be explored. (C) 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 95, 758-765.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据