QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hunt, S. Articles by Partridge, J. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hunt, S. Articles by Partridge, J. C.

Is the ultraviolet waveband a special communication channel in avian mate choice?

Sarah Hunt^*, Innes C. Cuthill, Andrew T. D. Bennett, Stuart C. Church and Julian C. Partridge

Centre for Behavioural Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The proportional transmission (300–700nm) of the four filter-types: ultraviolet-blocking (UV-), short-wave-blocking (SW-), medium-wave-blocking (MW-) and long-wave-blocking (LW-). Each filter removes a portion of the bird visible spectrum, closely corresponding to the spectral sensitivity of one of the four zebra finch single cone types (see Bowmaker et al., 1997). Spectra are plotted in the colour that the filters appear to the human eye.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Mean (+ S.E.M.) number of hops performed by females (N=8) in front of males under the ultraviolet-blocking (UV-), short-wave-blocking (SW-), medium-wave-blocking (MW-) and long-wave-blocking (LW-) filter treatments, during the three phases of the experiment. In control 1, females viewed empty stimulus cages; during mate assessment, a male was present in each cage; in control 2, males were once more removed.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (A) Proportional reflectance (320–700nm) of (i) the cage background, (ii) the white cheek, (iii) the red beak and (iv) the brown cheek patch of the male zebra finch. (B) Predicted relative quantal catches in the four zebra finch single cone types (UVS, ultraviolet-sensitive; SWS, short-wave-sensitive; MWS, medium-wave-sensitive; LWS, long-wave-sensitive) elicited by the cage background and each area of male plumage under ‘natural’ True-LiteTM illumination and under the four filter treatments [UV blocking (UV-), short-wave blocking (SW-), medium-wave blocking (MW-) and long-wave blocking (LW-)]. Quantal catches are calculated relative to the stimulation of the four cones by the cage background under ‘natural’ illumination. (C) Relative irradiance (log quantal flux) of the True-Lite tubes used in the experiment and colour space modelling. Data were collected with a Spex 1681 spectrometer connected to an integrating sphere positioned horizontally in the centre of each stimulus cage with no filters present. Spectra were measured at 1nm intervals. Quantal flux in the UV (300–400nm) was 7.1% of total quantal flux (300–700nm).

View larger version (95K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. A typical male wild-type zebra finch, showing the three regions for which reflectance was measured in Fig.3A: the red beak (approximately 8mm from base to tip), brown cheek patch and white region of the cheek.