Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues

Nature volume 401, pages 155–157 (1999)Cite this article

Abstract

Lek mating systems are characterized by males displaying in groups. The main benefit from group display is thought to be an increase in the number of females arriving per male. However, when mating success is highly skewed it is not clear why unsuccessful males participate in group display1. In theory, all males on leks could obtain indirect fitness benefits if displaying groups consisted of related individuals2. Here we present two independent sets of data that show that peacocks (Pavo cristatus) display close to their kin. DNA fingerprinting showed that males at Whipsnade Park were more closely related to males within the same lek than to males at other leks. Separately, we found that after an experimental release of a mixed group of related and unrelated males, brothers (paternal sibs or half-sibs) established permanent display sites very close together. This result is unexpected, as the released birds could not become familiar with their brothers during their development. The released young were hatched from eggs that had been removed from their parents shortly after laying and mixed with the eggs of non-relatives. These data indicate that birds can evolve a means of kin association that does not involve learning the characteristics of relatives or the use of environmental cues. If social learning is not necessary for kin association then kin effects may be of more widespread importance in avian social interactions, and in particular in the evolution of lek mating, than previously appreciated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Distribution of 59 displaying male peacocks at Whipsnade Park in 1995 (excluding released males).
Figure 2: Comparison of band-sharing between individual multilocus minisatellite DNA profiles within (blue bars) and between (red bars) the display sites represented in Fig. 1.
Figure 3: Permanent display sites established by all 19 peacocks of known paternity four years after their release into the study area (filled circles).
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Höglund,J. & Alatalo,R. V. Leks (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1995).

  2. Kokko,H., Lindström,J. Kin selection and the evolution of leks: whose success do young males maximise? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 919–923 (1996).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kokko,H., Sutherland,W. J., Lindström,J., Reynolds,J. D. & Mackenzie,A. Individual mating success, lek stability, and the neglected limitations of statistical power. Anim. Behav. 56, 755–762 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alatalo,R. V., Höglund,J., Lundberg,A. & Sutherland,W. J. Evolution of black grouse leks—female preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behav. Ecol. 3, 53–59 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Widemo,F. & Owens,I. P. F. Lek size, male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature 373, 148–151 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Petrie,M., Halliday,T. & Sanders,C. Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim. Behav. 41, 323–332 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Manly,B. F. Randomisation, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology 2nd edn (Chapman & Hall, London, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bruford,M. W., Hanotte,O., Brookfield,J. F. Y. & Burke,T. in Molecular Genetic Analysis of Populations: A Practical Approach 2nd edn (ed. Hoelzel, A. R.) 287–336 (IRL, Oxford, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Petrie,M. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371, 598–599 (1994).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Höglund,J., Alatalo,R. V., Lundberg,A., Rintamäki,P. T. & Lindell,J. Microsatellite markers reveal the potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 813–816 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lacy,R. C. & Sherman,P. W. Kin recognition by phenotype matching. Am. Nat. 121, 489–512 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grosberg,R. K. & Quinn,J. F. The genetic control and consequences of kin recognition by the larvae of a colonial marine invertebrate. Nature 322, 457–459 (1986).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Potts,W. K., Manning,C. J. & Wakeland,E. K. Mating patterns in semi-natural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature 352, 619–621 (1991).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Getz,W. M. & Smith,K. B. Genetic kin recognition: honey bees discriminate between full and half sisters. Nature 302, 148 (1983).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Grafen,A. Do animals really recognise kin? Anim. Behav. 39, 42–54 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alexander,R. D. Epigenetic rules and Darwinian algorithms: the adaptive study of learning and development. Ethol. Sociobiol. 11, 241–303 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sherman,P. W. Multiple mating and kin recognition by self-inspection. Ethol. Sociobiol. 12, 377–386 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sherman,P. W., Reeve,H. K. & Pfennig,D. W. in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4th edn (eds Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B.) 69–97 (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Blaustein,A. R., Bekoff,M. & Daniels,T. J. in Kin Recognition in Animals (eds Fletcher, D. J. C. & Michener, C. D.) 287–332 (Wiley, New York, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hanotte,O., Burke,T., Armour,J. A. L. & Jeffreys,A. J. Hypervariable minisatellite DNA sequences in the Indian peafowl Pavo cristatus. Genomics 9, 587–597 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Manly,B. F. J. RT, A Program for Randomization Testing, version 2.1. (Centre for Applied Statistics and Mathematics, University of Otago, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was initiated while M.P. was at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford and A.K. and T.B. were at the Department of Biology, University of Leicester. We thank the Zoological Society of London for permission to study the peafowl at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park; L. Lovett for help at Whipsnade; Q. Spratt for allowing M.P. To work at his peacock farm; A. Williams for help at the farm; P. Carpenter for help in scoring gels; E. Bell and A. Askew for writing computer programs; J. Brookfield for advice; J. Futter for help with producing Figures; B. Hatchwell, M. Young, G. Roberts, F. Ratnieks and P. Watt for comments on the manuscript; and the NERC and the BBSRC for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Evolution and Behaviour Research Group, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    Marion Petrie

  2. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

    Andrew Krupa & Terry Burke

Authors
  1. Marion Petrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Krupa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terry Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion Petrie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petrie, M., Krupa, A. & Burke, T. Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature 401, 155–157 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/43651

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/43651

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing