Bird color variations speed up evolution: research

May 09, 2012
Gouldian Finch
Male adult Gouldian Finch. Image: Wikipedia.

Researchers have found that bird species with multiple plumage colour forms within in the same population, evolve into new species faster than those with only one colour form, confirming a 60 year-old evolution theory.

The global study used information from birdwatchers and geneticists accumulated over decades and was conducted by University of Melbourne scientists Dr Devi Stuart-Fox and Dr Andrew Hugall (now based at the Melbourne Museum) and is published in the journal Nature.

The link between having more than one colour variation (colour ) like the iconic red, black or yellow headed Gouldian finches, and the faster of new species was predicted in the 1950s by famous scientists such as Julian Huxley, but this is the first study to confirm the theory.

By confirming a major theory in , we are able to understand a lot more about the processes that create biodiversity said Dr Devi Stuart-Fox from the University's Zoology Department.

"We found that in three families of birds of prey, the hawks and eagles, the owls and the nightjars, the presence of multiple colour forms leads to rapid generation of new species," Dr Stuart-Fox said.

"Well known examples of colour polymorphic species in these families include the Australian grey goshawk which has a grey and pure white form, the North American eastern screech owl and the Antillean nighthawk, each with grey and red forms."

The team focused on birds because although colour polymorphism occurs in many animals (such as fish, lizards, butterflies and snails), there is a wealth of information on colour variation in birds, as well as on species classification (taxonomy), partly thanks to birdwatchers or 'twitchers'.

"We looked at five bird families with a high proportion of colour polymorphism and compared their rates of evolution with those with only one colour form," Dr Stuart-Fox said.

By modeling evolutionary rates using publicly available genetic information accumulated over a quarter of a century, the study found that colour polymorphism speeds up the generation of new species. Colour polymorphic species tend to evolve into species with only one colour form (monomorphic), explaining why existing species with different colour forms are relatively young and also rare.

The study found that colour polymorphic species were younger not only in the birds of prey but in the songbirds, which account for more than half of the world's bird species.

Study co-author Dr Andrew Hugall noted that when scientists like Julian Huxley proposed that colour polymorphism speeds up the generation of new over half a century ago, they did not have the huge amounts of data needed to support it.

"Using many decades of natural history information and 25 years of genetic sequence information we were able to generate the massive family trees, such as a tree of more than four thousand songbirds, needed to model rates of bird evolution in this study," he said.

"Now that we've identified this pattern for the first time, our next step is to test some of the explanations proposed for why colour polymorphism leads to accelerated evolution."

Explore further: Small but speedy: Short plants live in the evolutionary fast lane

More information: DOI: 10.1038/nature11050

Related Stories

Human vision inadequate for research on bird vision

May 12, 2008

The most attractive male birds attract more females and as a result are most successful in terms of reproduction. This is the starting point of many studies looking for factors that influence sexual selection in birds. However, ...

Climate change is making our environment 'bluer'

Apr 06, 2011

The "colour" of our environment is becoming "bluer", a change that could have important implications for animals' risk of becoming extinct, ecologists have found. In a major study involving thousands of data points and published ...

Plumage-color traits more extreme over time

May 03, 2010

Ever since Darwin, researchers have tried to explain the enormous diversity of plumage colour traits in birds. Now researchers at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, are adding something new to this particular ...

Recommended for you

EU bans three pesticides harmful to bees

19 hours ago

The European Commission said Friday that it will ban for two years beginning in December pesticides blamed for killing the bees that pollinate food and fruit crops.

Studying the Noble King Mackerel

19 hours ago

They are sometimes called "smokers," due to the speed at which a fishing line zips out the reel and "smokes" after they hit on the bait.

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Cave_Man
5 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
Kind of like how attractive people with lots of money are evolving into a separate species...

Unfortunately intelligence, compassion and generosity is sparse in that gene pool.
verkle
1 / 5 (10) May 09, 2012
Have we ever observed even one instance of a specie evolving? Of course not. Because it supposedly takes billions of years for evolution to work, and some desperate scientists have only been observing species for such change for a little more than a hundred years.

Evolution is not true science, because it is not reproducible, even in the most generous environments we can offer today.

aroc91
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2012
Have we ever observed even one instance of a specie evolving? Of course not. Because it supposedly takes billions of years for evolution to work, and some desperate scientists have only been observing species for such change for a little more than a hundred years.

Evolution is not true science, because it is not reproducible, even in the most generous environments we can offer today.



Come back after you've put "observed evolution" into google and shed your religious bias.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2012
Have we ever observed even one instance of a specie evolving? Of course not. Because it supposedly takes billions of years for evolution to work, and some desperate scientists have only been observing species for such change for a little more than a hundred years.

Evolution is not true science, because it is not reproducible, even in the most generous environments we can offer today.


You're ignorant.

Have you ever formally studied evolutionary theory at an accredited university? No? Then shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you are talking about.

This subject is not accessible to the Joe Slob layman, unless you have formally studied evolutionary theory your opinion of it is completely IRRELEVANT, and the audacity to think otherwise shows nothing but a complete lack of respect for the subject at hand as well as science in general.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
The metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones extends the pattern of ecological niche and social niche development in microbes to species diversity that includes neurgenic niches and brain development in invertebrates (honeybee), vertebrates (stickleback) and mammals (us). What pattern suggests that spectral stimuli (e,g, auditory or visual) could directly cause the required changes in the molecular biology of intracellular signaling, stochastic gene expression, and species diversity?
aroc91
not rated yet May 10, 2012
The metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones extends the pattern of ecological niche and social niche development in microbes to species diversity that includes neurgenic niches and brain development in invertebrates (honeybee), vertebrates (stickleback) and mammals (us). What pattern suggests that spectral stimuli (e,g, auditory or visual) could directly cause the required changes in the molecular biology of intracellular signaling, stochastic gene expression, and species diversity?


That would be the goal of follow-up studies. First a correlation is established, then causation is tested.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
Cause is receptor-mediated. The nutrient chemicals and pheromones are the ligands (keys) that fit the locks (receptors) as is required for the changes in intracellular signaling that result in stochastic gene expression and diversification of species. What made you think I was speculating either about this established cause or about some correlation that needs to be tested? Are you familiar with the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link the sensory environment directly to behavior? Spectral stimuli are not directly involved, are they?
aroc91
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
Spectral stimuli are not directly involved, are they?


This quote from the article-
Colour polymorphic species tend to evolve into species with only one colour form (monomorphic), explaining why existing species with different colour forms are relatively young and also rare.


leads me to think that birds may tend to be attracted to those that have similar color distributions. This could direct evolution, through sexual selection, to make monomorphic species. Even a slight mating bias can be exaggerated over time to split the base population into separate interbreeding populations, each with a preferred color.

I guess I didn't read your first post clearly enough. I don't think the fast evolution is a direct result of the stimuli, it's just that the stimuli provides a means of differential mating and separation of different populations, which can then evolve independently.

JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
There is also a requirement for sex differences in the signal and its processing for receptor-mediated sensory cause and effect; adaptive evolution; and sexual selection. I don't recall the required demonstration of these sex differences in the visual system. Males and females see the same colors, but respond differently for mate choice. How does visual input (e.g., color) provide a means of differential mating and separation of different populations, which can then evolve independently?
kj92
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
Have we ever observed even one instance of a specie evolving? Of course not. Because it supposedly takes billions of years for evolution to work, and some desperate scientists have only been observing species for such change for a little more than a hundred years.

Evolution is not true science, because it is not reproducible, even in the most generous environments we can offer today.


First, there is no term "specie", there is only species, it is the singular and plural. Second, to answer yor question, yes, multiple species have evolved in the last 100 years that have been fully documented. For example, in 1978, canine parvovirus evolved from feline panleukopenia. In 1980-86, bovine spongiform encephalopathy evolved from ovine scrapie. Cauliflower evolved from domesticated broccoli (spontaneous--no one set out to make a cauliflower). Obviously, these species have direct impact on human endeavors, therefore, we have funded the research necessary to track these new species
aroc91
not rated yet May 11, 2012
There is also a requirement for sex differences in the signal and its processing for receptor-mediated sensory cause and effect; adaptive evolution; and sexual selection. I don't recall the required demonstration of these sex differences in the visual system. Males and females see the same colors, but respond differently for mate choice. How does visual input (e.g., color) provide a means of differential mating and separation of different populations, which can then evolve independently?


I'm not a bird psychologist. That sort of explanation is decades off. That's in the same boat with all other types of mating rituals seen in nature. Why is big peacock plumage attractive? Why is the bowerbird's blue nest attractive? Any other sort of odd courtship behavior does not have an intuitive explanation as to why it's a means of sexual selection, at least as far as I know.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
The psychology is no different because its basis in molecular biology is the same across all species that sexually reproduce. The explanation for attraction involves an ecotype-dependent social niche and its evolution to a neurogenic niche in vertebrates. The neurogenic niche links the epigenetic effects of sensory input from the environment to hormones that affect behavior. The paper that probably best exemplifies this in birds is: "Activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis differs between behavioral phenotypes in female white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis)" http://www.ncbi.n...18275963 The problem for most people is that until recently there was not much information on olfaction and pheromones in birds, so the assumption was that they were primarily dependent on spectral stimuli for attraction and reproduction.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
a complete lack of respect for the subject at hand as well as science in general.
- mouth without brain

CHollman or Deathclock or whatever obnoxious personality you are today, perhaps we can hope that your DNA is naturally deselected.

Its good for us to have a place like this to discuss differing views but you have no capacity for understanding evolving science as you are locked into your own self righteousness.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012
you have no capacity for understanding evolving science as you are locked into your own self righteousness -BlueTard

Pot, Kettle, Black.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
With due respect, thats nonsense Vendi. The bloke attacks anyone with differing views without even giving them the time of day. I would accept that my capabilty for deep research does not match yours but not that I am unable to be mostly open minded and engage in reasonable science based argument. This guy is an intolerant fool and likely misanthrope. I can understand hating many right wing nutcases but surely you draw the line at everybody?

kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
Kind of like how attractive people with lots of money are evolving into a separate species...

Unfortunately intelligence, compassion and generosity is sparse in that gene pool.

I dont think so... Not attractive people but greedy people!
aroc91
not rated yet May 11, 2012
The psychology is no different...


Gonna disagree. Modern neuroscience isn't to the point where we can identify why different species find visual displays attractive. Saying that the molecular basis of attraction is the same doesn't account for the difference in visual cues between species. It's getting there, but psychology isn't as concrete of a science as your assumptions imply.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
The intracellular signaling response to visual cues and stochastic gene expression is conditioned to occur via association with the receptor-mediated response initiated by nutrient chemicals and pheromones, just as it is in species that do not have eyes or ears. Only the pheromones are species-specific and sexually dimorphic (e.g., from yeasts to mammals), which doesn't leave much room for epigenetic effects of other sensory input to directly effect adaptive evolution (e.g., via natural and sexual selection).
aroc91
not rated yet May 11, 2012
Of course it does. You're proposing a deterministic neuroscience model that absolutely does not exist right now. We can't predict behavior based on brain function. We can't track and predict neuronal activity, at least to the level needed to come to the conclusions that you're making. You're essentially saying that we can read minds. Tracking of receptor-mediated responses breaks down once you factor in the brain. Animal behavior is so much more complex than a simple input-output function.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
The deterministic model that exists (see the FDA Critical Path Initiative) is one where nutrient chemicals and pheromones cause changes in intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression in species from microbes to man that require nutrient chemicals to survive and pheromones to standardize and control their reproduction. Behaviors associated with food acquisition and mate choice predictably involve unconscious affects, not a brain that predicts behavior. The mammalian brain developed to respond to sensory stimuli with behaviors that are predictable based on any organism's genetic predispositions and life-long effects of its environment on stochastic gene expression. It's not mind-reading. It's understanding the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link sensory cause and behavioral affect (e.g., via effects on hormones in mammals).
aroc91
not rated yet May 11, 2012
I never said cell signalling was indeterminate, but the sheer complexity of the brain prevents us from seeing the big picture at the moment.

I'm not sure how-
Behaviors associated with food acquisition and mate choice predictably involve unconscious affects, not a brain that predicts behavior.
or the FDA Critical Path Initiative are relevant.

Regarding the quote, I'm not talking about the brain predicting its own behavior, I'm talking about human beings predicting animal behavior. I'm not saying the processes of the brain are absolutely indeterminate, but they are at the moment. Thoughts are the result of determinate processes, but that doesn't mean we can read minds. That doesn't mean we can know which female a bird will find more attractive.

I can't scan your brain and determine whether you prefer blondes or brunettes and it would be a hell of a lot harder to determine WHY you have a particular preference.

JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
The adaptive evolution of the gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway that links sensory input directly to hormones that affect behavior makes the FDA Critical Path Initiative relevant to food acquisition and mate choice. Model organisms ensure that humans are not excluded from discussion of animal behavior. You keep returning to mind-reading for some reason. Why? And when male birds are typically the more colorful, what does the statement mean: "That doesn't mean we can know which female a bird will find more attractive"? The female chooses the dominant male that signals his testosterone level via his colorful plumage and pheromones. Men prefer blondes or brunettes based on their experiences with their pheromones, not their hairstyle, or colorful clothing.
aroc91
not rated yet May 11, 2012
There are sex-role reversed species. Not that it matters. That quoted statement means exactly what the blonde/brunette line means.

I keep returning to mind reading because your whole sensory pathway thing by itself can't explain decision making. You're disregarding the brain. Maybe it's just me, but that's an important part.

Here's what I originally had an issue with-
How does visual input (e.g., color) provide a means of differential mating and separation of different populations, which can then evolve independently?


What does sexual selection imply? Differential attraction. How is it so far fetched that different individuals can have different color preferences? The brain is far too complex to apply such simple rules to. Just because pheromones are involved doesn't mean there isn't a visual component to attraction.

Anyway, that still doesn't address what I'm trying to get at. It doesn't explain WHY some people respond to cues from blondes or brunettes more.

JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
The brain is too complex to not apply such simple rules. And, as I recall the first rule of scientific pursuit is to get the model right. Of course there's a visual component, that's why some foods are visually appealing. But it's not what the food looks like that causes the associated brain changes, is it? Sexual selection implies hormone driven choice, and pheromones directly alter levels of hormones -- just like food odors do. Conditioned responses explain preferences for different foods and different hair colors.
aroc91
not rated yet May 11, 2012
Unless you've experimentally kept people locked up without direct human contact their entire lives and demonstrated that they can't have a hair color preference without a linked pheromone stimulus, I don't think it's fair to make that conclusion.
JVK
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2012
Many people think that we cannot extrapolate from the existing data across disciplines to humans, although the molecular biology is the same. Most will accept animal models for aspects of behavioral development until the data conflicts with what they have been taught to think (e.g., that humans are primarily visual creatures). Is there a model for that? Since there is not, let's try to use the avian model for the development of preferences for the visually appealing physical features of conspecifics, and a mammalian model for everything else. That seems to suit the purpose of those who prefer correlates to neuroscientifically established cause and effect. So why not explain the visual appeal of food in birds and other mammals using a non-existent model of food acquisition? This becomes easier to do when you ignore animal models, as is currently done (e.g., across disciplines).
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 12, 2012
Unless you've experimentally kept people locked up without direct human contact their entire lives and demonstrated that they can't have a hair color preference without a linked pheromone stimulus, I don't think it's fair to make that conclusion.

Actually you can do such things without locking anyone up. It's called multivariate analysis. Just requires a increasingly large number of observations the more statistical variables you have to deal with.
Cynical1
not rated yet May 12, 2012
I'm not established in the scientific disciplines that many of you might be. However, I can see similarities across species and also make numerous conclusions because of that.
In light of this ability(?)I would pose the question (possibly already put forth by someone else in this thread - I didn't read the second page of comments) - couldn't humans be considered polymorphic at this time? If you consider the different races and variations within each of those races, it would certainly seem so.
By extension, from an evolutionary standpoint, are we at the point of becoming more polymorphic or more monomorphic?
JVK
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2012
The amount of data from multivariate analyses across species that can be combined to show proof that nutrient chemicals and pheromones are responsible for adaptive evolution is overwhelming. It could be compared to data on how visual input caused adaptive evolution if any data suggested there was even a need to approach that topic from a theoretical perspective. From an evolutionary perspective, adaptation drives polymorphism, not a return to the initial level of microbial diversity where n=1 at the cellular level of analysis. Nutrient chemical and pheromone-driven receptor-mediated events explain the diversity of species. Theorizing about visual input explains nothing by comparison.
aroc91
not rated yet May 12, 2012
What about this?

http://beheco.oxf...abstract

Visual input has nothing to do with this?
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012
Did I say visual input has nothing to do with it? No, as is typical, you are taking what I said about adaptive evolution and offering an example of a correlate, and asking me what the correlate has to do with adaptive evolution. What do you think the correlate of color has to do with the biological basis of adaptive evolution?
aroc91
not rated yet May 12, 2012
What's the mechanism behind you liking whatever your favorite color is? Let's say you like the color green. Is it because all green things release pheromones that you subconsciously like? No.
Shootist
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012
Kind of like how attractive people with lots of money are evolving into a separate species...

Unfortunately intelligence, compassion and generosity is sparse in that gene pool.


It is such a joy to observe your envy, lust and victimhood.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012
What's the mechanism behind you liking whatever your favorite color is? Let's say you like the color green. Is it because all green things release pheromones that you subconsciously like? No.


I don't see your point. Again, you are taking what I said about adaptive evolution and offering an example of a correlate. What does a favorite color have to do with adaptive evolution? Confirming a link between color polymorphism and relatively rapid recent diversity of some bird species addresses decades-old evolutionary theory, without addressing the biological facts of adaptive evolution. What is it about correlates like this that you think should be meaningfully interpreted?
aroc91
not rated yet May 12, 2012
Your initial question was whether spectral stimuli could directly influence evolution. Is it that far fetched for birds to have color preferences that lead to differential mating that aren't necessarily the correlate of underlying fitness? They can't like a color for the sake of liking a color? That's the point I'm trying to make.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012
No, they cannot like a color for the sake of liking it. There's no model for that! The point I am trying to make is that either we use the same model for the development of food preferences and species specific sexual preferences, or we can make up whatever "Just-So" story we like. Most people seem to prefer making up stories. They never try to find scientific support for their opinions that typically vary with what they are taught to think about cause and effect.

Rowe, C., & Guilford, T. (1996) Hidden colour aversion in domestic chicks triggered by pyrazine odours of insect warning displays. Nature, 383, 520 522.

"A neutral odor and classical conditioning caused an unexpected pattern of aversion to the color yellow. "...first evidence that the function of multicomponent signals can lie in hidden psychological responses produced by the interaction of their components."
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 12, 2012
They can't like a color for the sake of liking a color?

If they did why would you expect them all to like the same one?

Not everything we do is something that directly (or even indirectly) affects evolution, speciation or our personal chance to bear offspring. But when that behavior leads to a specieswide shift in genotype then (or even in the direction of speciation) then it's a good bet that there's an underlying reason.
aroc91
not rated yet May 13, 2012
No, they cannot like a color for the sake of liking it.


Let's consider the bowerbird family. Different bowerbird species show a different color preference for their nesting materials. Back before that phylogeny split into the 17 or so species present today, there was a common ancestor. Does it make sense in the context of reproductive fitness to like different colors? There must have been some that preferred red, for example, and some that preferred blue with equal reproductive success for the variety we see today to exist. I wouldn't say a preference for red shows an underlying difference in fitness relative to a preference for blue and I doubt those individuals that preferred red all had traumatic experiences with blue, so I don't think the Row & Guilford study applies. That's not to say it's invalid, just that I don't think it applied to the bowerbird ancestor.

www.pnas.org/cont...full.pdf

aroc91
not rated yet May 13, 2012
If they did why would you expect them all to like the same one?


I wouldn't expect them all to like the same one. The paper I just linked says that color preference can vary between populations and even between individuals.

More news stories

EU bans three pesticides harmful to bees

The European Commission said Friday that it will ban for two years beginning in December pesticides blamed for killing the bees that pollinate food and fruit crops.

Galaxies fed by funnels of fuel

(Phys.org) —Computer simulations of galaxies growing over billions of years have revealed a likely scenario for how they feed: a cosmic version of swirly straws.