Translator Disclaimer
1 April 2008 Mating Patterns in Avian Hybrid Zones — A Meta-Analysis and Review
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Hybrid zones provide a unique opportunity to study the dynamics of isolation barriers. Pre-zygotic isolation through assortative or conspecific mating is thought to be an important aspect of reinforcement and speciation. Although assortative mating has received much attention and nearly a hundred theoretical models have been published, there is a large gap between theory on the one hand and empirical data on the other. To fill this gap, I carried out a meta-analysis on 58 studies which were identified as suitable for the analysis. Most studies had been carried out in the field (n = 52), and six were based on mate choice experiments. Fifty-three studies used plumage scores and five used genetic evidence to assess parental types. I found no correlation between the magnitude of effect sizes and date of publishing (r = 0.181, P = 0.174, n = 58). A fixed effects model without any underlying model structure showed a heterogeneity of Qtotal = 5454.6 (df = 57; P < 0.001) and a significant mean effect size of 0.47 (95% CI 0.46–0.48). The results of the meta-analysis indicate that there is a significant effect of medium strength of assortative mating in avian hybrid zones. By partitioning the data, I found that effect sizes were very large in mate choice trials, and medium in observations in nature. Based on the inspections of the CIs of the mean effect sizes, assortative mating appeared strongest in Passeriformes and Charadriiformes hybrid zones. Further, assortative mating was stronger in narrow hybrid zones compared to wider ones but I found no difference between stable and moving zones.

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid zones provide a unique opportunity to study the process of speciation (e.g. Randler 2004, 2006a, 2006b, den Hartog et al. 2007). In keeping with Barton & Hewitt (1985), hybrid zones are “narrow regions in which two genetically distinct populations meet, mate and produce hybrids” (p. 497). Such hybrid zones vary in width, although most hybrid zones studied in detail are rather narrow compared to both species ranges. Further, hybrid zones may be stable over time or moving. Different theoretical models have been developed to characterise hybrid zones. First, the ephemeral zone hypothesis suggests that — after secondary contact — hybridisation either leads to complete reproductive isolation (speciation) or to merger (swamping) of the population (Moore 1977). Second, the dynamic equilibrium hypothesis (the ‘standard hypothesis’; Johnson & Johnson 1985) explains the nature of hybrid zones by a balance between gene flow into the hybrid zone from areas of allopatry and a selection against hybrids (Moore 1977, Johnson & Jonson 1985, Barton & Hewitt 1985). Third, the bounded hybrid superiority model is based on hybrid superiority in a narrow range (the hybrid zone) — which is often an ecotone between two different habitats — where hybrids are superior over their parental forms (Moore 1977). The dynamic equilibrium model was refined by Barton & Hewitt (1985) who claim that most hybrid zones are a shifting balance between dispersal and selection against hybrids. In their view, hybrid zones are ‘tension zones’ that can move, while the bounded-hybrid-superiority model suggest stable hybrid zones.

Different isolation barriers may act to enforce speciation and to prevent hybridisation. Mechanisms constituting such barriers to gene flow may be either pre-zygotic, such as positive assortative mating among parental phenotypes, or post-zygotic, for example reduced fitness in one or both sexes of these hybrids (Saino & Villa 1992, Helbig et al. 2001, Randler 2007a), full or partial genetic incompatibility (Helbig et al. 2001) or differences in susceptibility to predation (Randler 2007b). Grant & Grant (1992) argue that pre-zygotic isolation mechanisms are more important in birds. However, avian hybrid zones are maintained by pre-zygotic and post-zygotic isolation mechanisms (Helbig et al. 2001), although post-zygotic mechanisms have rarely been under investigation (Randler 2007b).

An important pre-zygotic isolation mechanism is assortative or conspecific mating. Here, I present the results of a meta-analysis investigating patterns of assortative mating in avian hybrid zones. In the context of this analysis, I define like-withlike mating as assortative mating irrespective of whether it is based on different species (conspecific versus heterospecific mating) or subspecies or different plumage morphs (as measured on a hybrid index of plumage scoring) to overcome the problem of defining species status. Assortative mating has also been found with regard to traits that are polymorphic throughout a species' range, such as age (Coulson 1966), plumage polymorphism (O'Donald 1959) or cultural background (Freeberg et al. 1999), but these studies will not be considered here because polymorphism does not form a hybrid zone.

The influence of assortative mating on speciation has received much attention and some hundred or so theoretical models have been published (see discussion in Brodin & Haas 2006). Assortative mating may lead to speciation — even in sympatry — (Kondrashov & Shpak 1998) but these models of speciation are rather strict. While mathematical models on the influence of assortative mating on speciation are widespread, empirical data are scarce (Servedio & Noor 2003). One recent overview contains only three avian species pairs (Howard 1993). Therefore, more empirical studies are required to allow assessment of the relative importance of the various models. Nevertheless, the study of pair composition in hybrid zones dates back at least to the 1950s, during which time pre-zygotic isolation was widely neglected in the scientific literature. For example, Dixon (1955) was one of the first authors who sampled mated pairs of titmice (Parus bicolor and P. atricristatus), but unfortunately he did not recognise the potential of his own work when writing “…such information tells us little beyond the fact that some mixed matings do occur” (Dixon 1955; p. 163).

Here, I present the results of a meta-analysis on assortative mating in avian hybrid zones to identify general patterns in a comparative manner and to provide an overview of the literature. In particular, I investigate whether the results of experimental and observational studies are in agreement, whether avian orders differ in their degree of assortative mating and whether the degree of assortative mating differs between various types of hybrid zones (stable/moving, narrow/wide).

METHODS

Data collection

Initially, I searched the Scopus and ISI (Web of Science) databases using the following combinations of terms: hybrid and (bird OR avian) and (Sexual selection OR Speciation OR Assortative mating OR Random pairing OR Random mating OR Mate choice OR Pair* OR Mate preference). Second, I used the combination ‘hybrid zone’ and (Sexual selection OR Assortative mating OR Random pairing OR Random mating OR Mate choice OR Pair composition OR Mate preference OR Heterospecific mat* OR Heterospecific pair* OR Interspecific mat* OR Interspecific pair*). Third, I searched the two databases SORA ( http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/) and OWL ( http://egizoosrv.zoo.ox.ac.uk/OWL/; both free of charge) to gain additional data. The search was closed at 20 March 2007. Initially, the abstracts were screened to assess whether the papers contained useful data. This yielded 49 studies. These publications then were obtained and the references were searched for additional relevant papers (snowball system), which yielded an additional number of 103 studies. Additionally, 38 studies from my own database were screened. Although this added to an impressive number of 190 papers, only a minority of these contained useful information for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Selection criteria

I applied the following selection criteria to extract studies for this analysis: (1) Data about mate selection/mate choice must have been reported, e.g. as a contingency table (e.g. when based on discrete types such as species or subspecies), as a correlation (e.g. when based on plumage indices / hybrid indices) or as means (e.g. when reporting time spent by females in front of either male type in a mate choice trial). Studies reporting ‘verbally’ that the pairing is at random or assortative were excluded. (2) Studies reporting data about at least one parental species and mixed pairings with the other parental species were included, while studies focusing on one parental species and mixed pairing consisting of a parental species and hybrids were excluded (e.g. Picozzi 1976, Risch & Andersen 1998).(3) Studies were excluded when no hybrids, hybrid populations or hybrid zones were reported from the wild. (4) Experimental studies were included in the analysis when based on mate choice trials (i.e. when females were tested in a two-chamber experiment). (5) A bulk of experimental studies in nature was excluded because mount or playback presentations of conspecific or heterospecifics were used to test male reactions. These studies are very valuable and highly appreciated in research on speciation but they do not provide data on assortative mating because they do not quantify female reactions. (6) In some studies different species or subspecies pairs were presented. Each pair was treated as single study.

After applying these selection criteria, 58 studies remained. The data for these studies can be obtained from the author upon request.

Variables

I obtained data from the original research papers if possible, and sometimes these original data were re-calculated. I further extracted data on the width of the hybrid zone (more than a few hundred km were considered ‘wide’) and on its stability. Zones on islands were excluded from the analyses as were zones that could not be estimated precisely. Data on the movement or stability of hybrid zones were based on historical data and extracted from the original sources. However, these data were not presented in all studies. Data about the age of the hybrid zone could not be reliably estimated from literature because secondary contact after the end of the glaciation was often used as an explanation by the authors rather than based on ‘observation’ or other direct (e.g. archaeological) evidence. Therefore, I did not control for age of the zone to avoid circular reasoning.

Effect size calculations

I obtained different values from the studies, e.g. correlation coefficients, data from contingency tables, and means. To compare effect sizes, I transformed all contingency tables to a standardised format that contained the number of observed and expected conspecific and observed and expected heterospecific pairings. I used data on expected frequencies when they were published in the original publications, otherwise I recalculated them following the method outlined in Rolando (1993). The chi-square values obtained based on this standardisation were subsequently transformed to a correlation coefficient using the tool MetaWin-Calculator. Effect sizes (expressed as z-scores) and variances were calculated using Meta-Win (Rosenberg et al. 2000). The conventional interpretation of the magnitude of effect sizes was used: effect sizes of 0.2 were small, of 0.5 medium, of 0.8 large, and effects greater than 1.0 were considered very large (Gurevitch & Hedges 1999). First, I started with a fixed effects model to look for a general effect and then turned to random effects models to make the results generalisable beyond the set of studies (see results).

RESULTS

I identified 58 studies suitable for the meta-analysis (Table 1). Most studies were carried out using field observations (n = 52), and only six were based on mate choice experiments in which females were given a choice between two alternative males. Further, 53 studies used plumage scores and five used genetic evidence to assess parental types.

Considering publication bias, I found no significant relationship between the magnitude of effect sizes and year of the study (date of publishing; r = 0.18, P = 0.17, n = 58).

As a first step, I calculated a fixed effects model without any underlying model structure. The model showed a heterogeneity of Qtotal = 5454.6 (df = 57; P < 0.001) and a significant mean effect size of 0.47. The 95% confidence interval (CI) ranged from 0.46 to 0.48, indicating a medium and significant trend towards positive assortative mating in these zones and sub/species across all studies. The heterogeneity is also a measure of the extent to which the results of the studies are in agreement. That is, significant heterogeneity justifies a search for further effects. Therefore it is possible to partition the effect sizes into within- and between-group components (Verdolin 2006). I divided studies into observational studies (n = 52) and experimental evidence (mate choice trials; n = 6). I found significant between-study variation (Qb = 16.82, df = 1, P < 0.01), but no significant variation within studies (Qw = 52.47, df = 56, P = 0.60). Mean effect size for the observational studies was 0.41 with a CI from 0.26 to 0.57, and for the experimental studies it was 1.49 (CI 0.84 to 2.13), based on a random model. As both CIs excluded zero, the results can be considered significant. Mean effect sizes for the total set of studies under a random model was 0.51 (CI 0.36–0.66).

When looking at the different orders no significant between- (Qbetween = 3.07, df = 4, P = 0.54) and within-study variation (Qwithin = 60.71, df = 50, P = 0.14) was found (Table 2). The CI included zero for Anseriformes and Piciformes hybrid zones, suggesting that assortative mating is less pronounced or absent in these orders.

Table 1.

Studies used for the meta-analysis of assortative mating in avian hybrid zones.

t01_73.gif

Concerning the width of the hybrid zones, the random model produced a significant heterogeneity of Qtotal = 81.76 (df = 41, P < 0.001). Between-study variation was not significant (Qbetween = 0.08, df = 1, P = 0.77) in contrast to within-study variation (Qwithin = 81.68, df = 40, P < 0.001). The effect sizes were higher in narrow hybrid zones compared to wider ones and the CI included zero in the wider hybrid zones, suggesting that assortative mating is less pronounced (or even absent) in wide hybrid zones.

With regard to the stability of the hybrid zones, there was no significant overall effect Qtotal = 43.20 (df = 37, P = 0.22). Neither between-(Qbetween = 0.04, df = 1, P = 0.82) nor within-study variation (Qwithin = 43.15, df = 36, P = 0.19) was significant, suggesting no differences between moving and stable hybrid zones in the strength of assortative mating.

Table 2.

Meta-analysis of assortative mating in avian hybrid zones. Effect sizes compared between taxonomic orders, and width and stability of the zone based on random effects models.

t02_73.gif

DISCUSSION

The results of the meta-analysis indicate that there is significant assortative mating in avian hybrid zones. By partitioning the data, I found that effect sizes were very large in mate choice trials and medium in nature. This difference in effect sizes suggests that — given a choice between two alternative males — females usually are able to recognise conspecifics and mate assortatively, while in the field a lack of conspecific males may lead to hybridisation. Assortative mating was stronger in narrow hybrid zones compared to wider ones but there was no difference between stable and moving zones. The first result fits with the theoretical models (see below) because assortative mating should narrow a hybrid zone and should act against hybridisation. Thus, like-with-like pairings will reduce the width of a hybrid zone and enhance prezygotic isolation. Therefore, assortative mating should be higher in narrow zones.

Concerning stable and moving hybrid zones most studies report the presence and absence of assortative mating, and only a few studies provide evidence that in some hybrid zones one type is preferred over the other by females of both species (e.g. Branson et al. 2003, Stein & Uy 2006). These two hybrid zones are moving as a result of this biased mate choice. Moving hybrid zones deserve further attention to answer the question of which factors may cause a hybrid zone to move.

In an overview, Howard (1993) identified 16 animal hybrid zones in which the random mating expectation was fulfilled, and 19 in which it was not. In these zones, the pattern of interaction was positively assortative and evidence for negative assortative mating was not found. The present study provides evidence for positive assortative mating in avian hybrid zones across studies. Further, it supports theoretical and mathematical models that predict parapatric speciation by assortative mating patterns (Kondrashov & Shpak 1998, Kirkpatrick 2000, Servedio & Noor 2003, Brodin & Haas 2006). From a theoretical point of view, assortative mating should lead to reinforcement and speciation and should narrow any hybrid zone (Barton & Hewitt 1985). However, this metaanalysis shows that most hybrid zones are narrow and stable over time, suggesting that assortative mating is counteracted by other factors. Here, the models proposed by Barton & Hewitt (1985) provide some explanation: one contributing factor may be that inexperienced individuals from outside the hybrid zone regularly immigrate into the zone and subsequently mate heterospecifically.

How should assortative mating arise and what are the proximate cues? If we assume that hybridization is a result of ‘mistakes’ in mate recognition, we could find the answer in avian social recognition. Early imprinting on father or mother (ten Cate & Vos 1999) or on social mates (Brodsky et al. 1988) starts a process of social preferences (Gill 1998). Such early experience often determines mating preferences (ten Cate & Vos 1999, Randler 2005). Then assortative mating may persist and imprinting may have a considerable effect on the genetic structure of a population (Findlay 1987).

Assortative mating does not necessarily need to be based on social recognition but may also arise passively (Wiebe 2000), e.g. if two groups have different breeding chronologies or timing of migration (prevalence hypothesis, Findlay 1987).

Another aspect may be the role of mate choice copying (Freeberg et al. 1999) where one female copies the mate choice tactic of another. If a given female chooses the wrong male (perhaps as a result of imprinting, see above) and her choice is copied by other females, then such a cultural transmission of mate choice may contribute to the ongoing process of hybridisation.

Further, the results of the comparison between experimental and observational studies could be used to distinguish between two competing hypotheses of hybridisation (Randler 2002). Hybridisation may be regarded either as mistake in mate recognition (see above) or it may be an active choice of females ‘making the best of a bad job’. In the latter case, females choose heterospecific males because conspecific males are absent or already paired. In hybrid zones, it may be better to produce at least some viable hybrid offspring rather than remain unpaired and abandon reproduction (Baker 1996, Veen et al. 1999). This latter view is supported by data of the meta-analysis because in the mate choice trials where females had the opportunity to choose between two possible mates most decisions were ‘correct’ (i.e. choosing a conspecific mate). The analysis detected a large effect size in these trials. For example, quails of the genus Callipepla mated assortatively in an aviary test but not in the wild (Gee 2003) and female flycatchers were able to choose the correct male in an aviary test but did hybridise in nature (Saetre et al. 1997). Caution is required in the interpretation of these results as the set of species that were investigated in captivity (mate choice trials) was biased towards species that were particularly amenable to being held in captivity (e.g. Passerines, ducks). Nevertheless, the results of the present meta-analysis suggest that females are able to choose the ‘correct’ mate in mate choice trials but do not always pair assortatively in nature, which could keep hybridisation an ongoing process acting against narrowing of hybrid zones.

REFERENCES

1.

K.F. Abraham , C.D. Ankney & H. Boyd 1983. Assortative mating by Brant. Auk 100: 201–203. Google Scholar

2.

B.W. Anderson & R.J. Daugherty 1974. Characteristics and reproductive biology of grosbeaks (Pheucticus) in the hybrid zone in south Dakota. Wilson Bull. 86: 1–11. Google Scholar

3.

M.C. Baker & J.T. Boylan 1999. Singing behavior, mating association and reproductive success in a population of hybridizing Lazuli and Indigo buntings. Condor 101: 493–504. Google Scholar

4.

M.C. Baker 1996. Female buntings from hybridizing populations prefer conspecific males. Wilson Bull. 108: 771–775. Google Scholar

5.

N.H. Barton & G.M. Hewitt 1985. Analysis of hybrid zones. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 113–148. Google Scholar

6.

J. Becker 2007. Nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos, Thrush Nightingale L. luscinia and their hybrids in the area of Frankfurt (Oder). Vogelwarte 45: 15–26. Google Scholar

7.

D.A. Bell 1997. Hybridization and reproductive performance in gulls of the Larus glaucescens-occidentalis complex. Condor 99: 585–594. Google Scholar

8.

C.E. Bock 1971. Pairing in hybrid flicker populations in eastern Colorado. Auk 88: 921–924. Google Scholar

9.

A. Brodin & F. Haas 2006. Speciation by perception. Anim. Behav. 72: 139–146. Google Scholar

10.

L.M. Brodsky , C.D. Ankney & D.G. Dennis 1988. The influence of male dominance on social interactions in black ducks and mallards. Anim. Behav. 36: 1371–1378. Google Scholar

11.

L.M. Brodsky , C.D. Ankney & D.G. Dennis 1989. Social experience influences preferences in black ducks and mallards. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1434–1438. Google Scholar

12.

C.L. Bronson , T.C. Grubb , G.D. Sattler & M.J. Braun 2003. Mate preference: a possible causal mechanism for a moving hybrid zone. Anim. Behav. 65: 489–500. Google Scholar

13.

C.L. Bronson , T.C. Grubb , G.D. Sattler & M.J. Braun 2005. Reproductive success across the black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) and Carolina chickadee (P. carolinensis) hybrid zone in Ohio. Auk 122: 759–772. Google Scholar

14.

P.G. Connors , B.J. McCaffrey & J.L. Maron 1993. Speciation in golden plovers, Pluvialis dominica and P. fulva: evidence from the breeding grounds. Auk 110: 9–20. Google Scholar

15.

J.C. Coulson 1966. The influence of the pair-bond and age on the breeding biology of the Kittiwake gull Rissa tridactyla. J. Anim. Ecol. 35: 269–279. Google Scholar

16.

W. Delport , A.C. Kemp & J.W.H. Ferguson 2004. Structure of an African red-billed hombill (Tockus erythrorhynchus rufirostris and T. e. damarensis) hybrid zone as revealed by morphology, behaviour, and breeding biology. Auk 121: 565–586. Google Scholar

17.

P.M. Den Hartog , S.R. de Kort & C. ten Cate 2007. Hybrid vocalizations are effective within, but not outside an avian hybrid zone. Behav. Ecol. 18: 608–614. Google Scholar

18.

K.L. Dixon 1955. An ecological analysis of interbreeding of crested titmice in texas. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 54: 124–205. Google Scholar

19.

S.T. Emlen , J.D. Rising & W.L. Thompson 1975. A behavioral and morphological study of sympatry in the Indigo and Lazuli buntings of the great Plains. Wilson Bull. 87: 145–177. Google Scholar

20.

B. Faivre , J. Secondi , C. Ferry , L. Chastragnat & F. Cezilly 1999. Morphological variation and the recent evolution of wing length in the Icterine Warbler: a case of unidirectional introgression? J. Avian Biol. 30: 152–158. Google Scholar

21.

I.V. Fefelov 2001. Comparative breeding ecology and hybridization of Eastern and Western Marsh Harrier Circus spilonotus and C. aeruginosus in the Baikal region of Eastern Siberia. Ibis 143: 587–592. Google Scholar

22.

C.S. Findlay 1987. Non-random mating: a theoretical and empirical overview with specific reference to birds. In: F. Cooke & P.A. Buckley (eds) Avian Genetics. Academic Press, London, pp. 289–319. Google Scholar

23.

T.M. Freeberg , S.D. Duncant , T.L. Kast & D.A. Enstrom 1999. Cultural influence on female mate choice: an experimental test in cowbirds, Molothrus ater. Anim. Behav. 57: 421–426. Google Scholar

24.

J.M. Gee 2003. How a hybrid zone is maintained: behavioral mechanisms of interbreeding between California and gambel's quail (Callipepla californica and C. gambelii). Evolution 57: 2407–2415. Google Scholar

25.

F.B. Gill 1998. Hybridization in Birds. Auk 115: 281–283. Google Scholar

26.

T.P. Good , J.C. Ellis , C.A. Annett & R. Pierotti 2000. Bounded hybrid superiority in an avian hybrid zone: effects of mate choice, diet, and habitat choice. Evolution 54: 1774–1783. Google Scholar

27.

P.R. Grant & B.R. Grant 1997. Hybridization, sexual imprinting, and mate choice. Am. Nat. 149: 1–28. Google Scholar

28.

P.R. Grant & B.R. Grant 1992. Hybridization of bird species. Science 256: 193–197. Google Scholar

29.

J. Gurevitch & L.V. Hedges 1999. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80: 1142–1149. Google Scholar

30.

A.J. Helbig , M. Salomon , S. Bensch & I. Seibold 2001. Male-biased gene flow across an avian hybrid zone: evidence from mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 277–287. Google Scholar

31.

W. Hofmann , J.A. Wiens & J.M. Scott 1978. Hybridization between gulls (Larus galucescens and L. occidentalis) in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 95: 441–458. Google Scholar

32.

D.J. Howard 1993. Reinforcement: origin, dynamics, and fate of an evolutionary hypothesis. In: R.G. Harrisson Hybrid zones and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 46–69. Google Scholar

33.

T.R. Howell 1952. Natural history and differentiation in the yellow-bellied sapsuckers. Condor 54: 237–282. Google Scholar

34.

A. Ingolfsson 1970. Hybridization of Glaucous Gulls Larus hyperboreus and Herring Gulls L. argentatus in Iceland. Ibis 112: 340–362. Google Scholar

35.

N.K. Johnson & C.B. Johnson 1985. Speciation in sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus): II. Sympatry, hybridization, and mate preferences in S. ruber dagetti and S. nuchalis. Auk 102: 1–15. Google Scholar

36.

M. Kirkpatrick 2000. Reinforcement and divergence under assortative mating. Proc. Royal Soc. London B 267: 1649–1655. Google Scholar

37.

A.S. Kondrashov & M. Shpak 1998. On the origin of species by means of assortative mating. Proc. R. Soc. London B 265: 2273–2278. Google Scholar

38.

P. Lloyd , A.J.F.K. Craig , P.E. Hulley , M.F. Essop , P. Bloomer & T.M. Crowe 1997. Ecology and genetics of hybrid zones in the southern African Pycnonotus bulbul species complex. Ostrich 68: 90–96. Google Scholar

39.

W.S. Moore 1977. An evaluation of narrow hybrid zones in vertebrates. Quart. Rev. Biol. 52: 263–277. Google Scholar

40.

W.S. Moore 1987. Random mating in the Northern Flicker hybrid zone: implications for the evolution of bright and contrasting plumage patterns in birds. Evolution 41: 539–546. Google Scholar

41.

P. O'Donald 1959. Possibility of assortative mating in the Arctic Skua. Nature 183: 1210–1211. Google Scholar

42.

E.N. Panov , V.I. Grabovsky & A.S. Rubtsov 1994. Spatial and temporal dynamics by pied wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka and black-eared wheatear O. hispanica. J. Omithol. 135: 361. Google Scholar

43.

M.A. Patten , J.T. Rotenberry & M. Zuk 2004. Habitat selection, acoustic adaptation, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Evolution 58: 2144–2155. Google Scholar

44.

S.F. Pearson 2000: Behavioral asymmetries in a moving hybrid zone. Behav. Ecol. 11: 84–92. Google Scholar

45.

N. Picozzi 1976. Hybridization of Carrion and Hooded Crows Corvus c. corone and Corvus c. cornix in north-eastern Scotland. Ibis 118: 254–257. Google Scholar

46.

C. Randler 2002. Hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim. Behav. 63: 103–119. Google Scholar

47.

C. Randler 2004. Frequency of bird hybrids: does detectability make all the difference? J. Ornithol. 145: 123–128. Google Scholar

48.

C. Randler 2005. Do forced extrapair copulations and interspecific brood amalgamation facilitate natural hybridisation in wildfowl? Behaviour 142: 477–488. Google Scholar

49.

C. Randler 2006a. Behavioural and ecological correlates of natural hybridization in birds. Ibis 148: 459–467. Google Scholar

50.

C. Randler 2006b. Extrapair paternity and hybridization in birds. J. Avian Biol. 37: 1–5. Google Scholar

51.

C. Randler 2007a. Assortative mating of Carrion Corvus corone and Hooded Crows C. cornix in the hybrid zone in eastern Germany. Ardea 95: 143–149. Google Scholar

52.

C. Randler 2007b. Risk assessment by crow phenotypes in a hybrid zone. J. Ethol. (in press). doi: 10.1007/s10164-007-0062-z. Google Scholar

53.

P.C. Rasmussen 1991. Relationships between coastal south American king and blue-eyed shags. Condor 93: 825–839. Google Scholar

54.

M.W. Reudink , S.G. Mech & R.L. Curry 2006. Extrapair paternity and mate choice in a chickadee hybrid zone. Behav. Ecol. 17: 56–62. Google Scholar

55.

M. Risch & L. Andersen 1998. Selektive Partnerwahl der Aaskrähe (Corvus corone) in der Hybridisierungszone von Rabenkrähe (C. c. corone) und Nebelkrähe (C. c. cornix). J. Ornithol. 139: 173–177. Google Scholar

56.

J.D. Rising 1996. The stability of the oriole hybrid zone in western Kansas. Condor 98: 658–663. Google Scholar

57.

M.S. Ritz , S. Hahn , T. Janicke & H.U. Peter 2006. Hybridisation between South polar skua (Catharacta maccormicki) and Brown skua (C. antarctica lonnbergi) in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Polar Biol. 29: 153–159. Google Scholar

58.

M.B. Robbins , M.J. Braun & E.A. Tobey 1986. Morphological and vocal variation across a contact zone between the chickadees Parus atricapillus and P. carolinensis. Auk 103: 655–666. Google Scholar

59.

A. Rolando 1993. A study on the hybridization between Carrion and Hooded Crow in Northwestern Italy. Ornis Scand. 24: 80–83. Google Scholar

60.

M.S. Rosenberg , D.C. Adams , & J. Gurevitch 2000. MetaWin version 2. Sinauer, Sunderland Massachusetts. Google Scholar

61.

G.-P. Saetre , M. Kral & S. Bures 1997. Differential species recognition abilities of males and females in a flycatcher hybrid zone. J. Avian Biol. 28: 259–263. Google Scholar

62.

N. Saino & S. Villa 1992. Pair composition and reproductive success across a hybrid zone of carrion and hooded crows. Auk 109: 543–555. Google Scholar

63.

M.R. Servedio & M.A.F. Noor 2003. The role of reinforcement in speciation: Theory and data. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 339–364. Google Scholar

64.

L.L. Short 1965. Hybridiztaion in the flickers (Colaptes) of North America. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 129: 1–128. Google Scholar

65.

A.C. Stein & J.A.C. Uy 2006. Unidirectional introgression of a sexually selected trait across an avian hybrid zone: a role for female choice? Evolution 60: 1476–1485. Google Scholar

66.

C. ten Cate & D.R. Vos 1999. Sexual Imprinting and Evolutionary Processes in Birds: A Reassessment. Adv. Stud. Behav. 28: 1–31. Google Scholar

67.

T. Veen , T. Borge , S.C. Griffith , G.-P. Sætre , S. Bures , L. Gustafsson & B.C. Sheldon 2001. Hybridization and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. Nature 411: 45–50. Google Scholar

68.

J.L. Verdolin 2006. Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 457–464. Google Scholar

69.

K.L. Wiebe 2000. Assortative mating by color in a population of hybrid northern flickers. Auk 117: 525–529. Google Scholar

Appendices

SAMENVATTING

Als tussen twee populaties van een soort lange tijd geen uitwisseling plaatsvindt, zullen die populaties genetisch van elkaar gaan verschillen. Komen dergelijke populaties weer met elkaar in contact, dan kunnen er drie dingen gebeuren: (1) Individuen uit beide populaties herkennen elkaar niet meer als soortgenoten (er is soortsvorming opgetreden), (2) ze paren net zoveel met elkaar als met Individuen uit hun eigen populatie (er is geen soortsvorming opgetreden), of (3) ze paren wel met elkaar, maar minder vaak dan met Individuen uit hun eigen populatie. In het laatste geval is soortsvorming onvolledig en kan er een hybridezone ontstaan. In dit artikel wordt aan de hand van een literatuuronderzoek nagegaan hoe sterk soortspecifieke paring is in hybridezones van vogels. In totaal werden 58 schattingen gevonden in de literatuur. Paarvorming in hybridezones was verre van willekeurig. Verder bleek soortspecifieke paarvorming sterker in experimentele studies dan in veldstudies voor te komen. Dit suggereert dat de vogels wel degelijk onderscheid kunnen maken, maar dat ze in het veld niet altijd de mogelijkheid hebben te paren met het type partner dat hun voorkeur heeft. Hybridisatie kan dan gezien worden als een ‘beter-dan-niets’ oplossing. (KK)

Christoph Randler "Mating Patterns in Avian Hybrid Zones — A Meta-Analysis and Review," Ardea 96(1), 73-80, (1 April 2008). https://doi.org/10.5253/078.096.0108
Received: 29 June 2007; Accepted: 1 February 2008; Published: 1 April 2008
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top