Pair formation

@article{rhoads1890probable,
    author = "Rhoads, Samuel N.",
    title = "Probable Causes of Polygamy Among Birds",
    year = "1890",
    journal = "The American Naturalist",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/275221",
    doi = "10.1086/275221",
    number = "287",
    pages = "1024-1036",
    volume = "24"
}

@article{shufeldt1907polygamy,
    author = "Shufeldt, R. W.",
    title = "Polygamy and Other Modes of Mating Among Birds",
    year = "1907",
    journal = "The American Naturalist",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/278735",
    doi = "10.1086/278735",
    number = "483",
    pages = "161-175",
    volume = "41"
}

@article{winterbottom1928polygamy,
    author = "Winterbottom, J. M.",
    title = "Polygamy in the Birds of Paradise",
    year = "1928",
    journal = "The American Naturalist",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/280216",
    doi = "10.1086/280216",
    number = "681",
    pages = "380-383",
    volume = "62"
}

@article{lack1940pairformation,
    author = "Lack, David",
    title = "Pair-Formation in Birds",
    year = "1940",
    journal = "The Condor",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1364160",
    doi = "10.2307/1364160",
    number = "6",
    pages = "269-286",
    volume = "42"
}

@article{chisholm1953polygamy,
    author = "Chisholm, A. H.",
    title = "Polygamy Among Ground-frequenting Birds",
    year = "1953",
    journal = "Emu - Austral Ornithology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1071/mu953088a",
    doi = "10.1071/mu953088a",
    number = "1",
    pages = "88-89",
    volume = "53"
}

@inproceedings{crook1962the1,
    author = "Crook, J. H",
    title = "The adaptive significance of pair formation types in weaver birds",
    year = "1962",
    booktitle = "Symposium of the Zoological Society, London, v. 8, p. 57-70",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Crook, J. H., 1962, The adaptive significance of pair formation types in weaver birds: Symposium of the Zoological Society, London, v. 8, p. 57-70.}"
}

@misc{crook1963monomagy2,
    author = "Crook, J. H",
    title = "Monomagy, polygamy and food supply",
    year = "1963",
    howpublished = "Discovery, no. January, p. 35-41",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Crook, J. H., 1963, Monomagy, polygamy and food supply: Discovery, no. January, p. 35-41.}"
}

@article{spurr1976adaptive,
    author = "Spurr, Eric and Milne, Henry",
    title = "Adaptive Significance of Autumn Pair Formation in the Common Eider Somateria mollissima (L.)",
    year = "1976",
    journal = "Ornis Scandinavica",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/3676177",
    doi = "10.2307/3676177",
    number = "1",
    pages = "85",
    volume = "7"
}

I studied fruit-feeding by nine species of birds of paradise in Papua New Guinea from July 1978 through November 1980 and gathered 1,187 records of foraging at 31 species of trees and vines from 14 botanical families. Fruit consumed was consistently small-to moderate-sized (mean: 1 cm diameter), but fruit of different species of plants showed high morphological diversity. I classify the fruit of 31 plant species into three morphological groups: capsule, fig, and drupe/berry. Each of the primarily frugivorous birds of paradise was recorded taking fruits from 10-21 plant species, including representatives from each class. The monogamous Trumpet Manucode and Crinkle-collared Manucode were fig specialists. More than 80% of their diet was figs. The polygamous species of paradisaeids were more "generalized" fruit-feeders and took significant amounts of fruit from all three morphological categories. The most important types of fruit among the polygamous birds were capsular species (49% of diet). While fig species were visited by birds from many families, most nonfig trees hosted a narrower range of foragers, and two species of trees, Chisocheton weinlandii (Meliaceae) and Gastonia spectabilis (Araliaceae), were visited only by birds of paradise. The frugivorous habits of birds of paradise are similar in several respects to those of the neotropical cotingids and manakins. It is argued that while frugivory is an important component of the evolution of polygamous arena display in these birds, it cannot, by itself, explain why some birds are polygamous and others monogamous. Frugivory in the tropics is a complex syndrome that offers a number of ecological alternatives that, in turn, promote different behavioral adaptations.

@article{beehler1983frugivory,
    author = "Beehler, Bruce",
    title = "Frugivory and Polygamy in Birds of Paradise",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "The Auk",
    abstract = {I studied fruit-feeding by nine species of birds of paradise in Papua New Guinea from July 1978 through November 1980 and gathered 1,187 records of foraging at 31 species of trees and vines from 14 botanical families. Fruit consumed was consistently small-to moderate-sized (mean: 1 cm diameter), but fruit of different species of plants showed high morphological diversity. I classify the fruit of 31 plant species into three morphological groups: capsule, fig, and drupe/berry. Each of the primarily frugivorous birds of paradise was recorded taking fruits from 10-21 plant species, including representatives from each class. The monogamous Trumpet Manucode and Crinkle-collared Manucode were fig specialists. More than 80\% of their diet was figs. The polygamous species of paradisaeids were more "generalized" fruit-feeders and took significant amounts of fruit from all three morphological categories. The most important types of fruit among the polygamous birds were capsular species (49\% of diet). While fig species were visited by birds from many families, most nonfig trees hosted a narrower range of foragers, and two species of trees, Chisocheton weinlandii (Meliaceae) and Gastonia spectabilis (Araliaceae), were visited only by birds of paradise. The frugivorous habits of birds of paradise are similar in several respects to those of the neotropical cotingids and manakins. It is argued that while frugivory is an important component of the evolution of polygamous arena display in these birds, it cannot, by itself, explain why some birds are polygamous and others monogamous. Frugivory in the tropics is a complex syndrome that offers a number of ecological alternatives that, in turn, promote different behavioral adaptations.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/100.1.1",
    doi = "10.1093/auk/100.1.1",
    number = "1",
    pages = "1-12",
    volume = "100"
}

@incollection{wittenberger1985the,
    author = "Wittenberger, James F. and Hunt, George L.",
    title = "THE ADAPTIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF COLONIALITY IN BIRDS",
    year = "1985",
    booktitle = "Avian Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-249408-6.50010-8",
    doi = "10.1016/b978-0-12-249408-6.50010-8",
    pages = "1-78"
}

@incollection{székely2007the,
    author = "Székely, A.D.",
    title = "The Hippocampal Formation in Food-Storing Birds",
    year = "2007",
    booktitle = "Evolution of Nervous Systems",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-370878-8/00138-5",
    doi = "10.1016/b0-12-370878-8/00138-5",
    pages = "237-246"
}

Good genes theories of sexual selection predict that polygamy will be associated with more efficient removal of deleterious alleles (purifying selection), due to the alignment of sexual selection with natural selection. On the other hand, runaway selection theories expect no such alignment of natural and sexual selection, and may instead predict less efficient purifying selection in polygamous species due to higher reproductive variance. In an analysis of polymorphism data extracted from 150-bird genome assemblies, we show that polygamous species carry significantly fewer nonsynonymous polymorphisms, relative to synonymous polymorphisms, than monogamous bird species (p =.0005). We also show that this effect is independent of effective population size, consistent with the alignment of natural selection with sexual selection and “good genes” theories of sexual selection. Further analyses found no impact of polygamy on genetic diversity, while polygamy in females (polyandry) had a marginally significant impact (p =.045). We also recapitulate previous findings that smaller body mass and greater geographic range size are associated with more efficient purifying selection, more intense GC-biased gene conversion, and greater genetic diversity.

@article{wanders2023polygamy,
    author = "Wanders, Kees and Chen, Guangji and Feng, Shaohong and Zhang, Guojie and Székely, Tamás and Bruford, Mike and Végvári, Zsolt and Eichhorn, Götz and Urrutia, Araxi",
    title = "Polygamy and purifying selection in birds",
    year = "2023",
    journal = "Evolution",
    abstract = "Good genes theories of sexual selection predict that polygamy will be associated with more efficient removal of deleterious alleles (purifying selection), due to the alignment of sexual selection with natural selection. On the other hand, runaway selection theories expect no such alignment of natural and sexual selection, and may instead predict less efficient purifying selection in polygamous species due to higher reproductive variance. In an analysis of polymorphism data extracted from 150-bird genome assemblies, we show that polygamous species carry significantly fewer nonsynonymous polymorphisms, relative to synonymous polymorphisms, than monogamous bird species (p =.0005). We also show that this effect is independent of effective population size, consistent with the alignment of natural selection with sexual selection and “good genes” theories of sexual selection. Further analyses found no impact of polygamy on genetic diversity, while polygamy in females (polyandry) had a marginally significant impact (p =.045). We also recapitulate previous findings that smaller body mass and greater geographic range size are associated with more efficient purifying selection, more intense GC-biased gene conversion, and greater genetic diversity.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpac010",
    doi = "10.1093/evolut/qpac010",
    number = "1",
    pages = "276-288",
    volume = "77"
}