Sex differences in avian plumage evolution: stronger effects of natural selection and social competition on females

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

Sexual dichromatism in birds may evolve via sexual selection for increased elaboration in male plumage (Darwin hypothesis) or, alternatively, by natural selection for increased crypsis in female plumage (Wallace hypothesis). Both these effects may be counteracted by social competition promoting ornamentation in females. However, the relative roles of sexual, natural, and social selection in shaping patterns of plumage dichromatism have proved difficult to disentangle. To test these hypotheses in conjunction, we estimated the strength of sexual selection on males, the level of predation risk on females and the intensity of social selection across 1283 species of suboscine passerines. We then used phylogenetic analyses to evaluate the drivers of sex differences in plumage elaboration and brightness. The results confirm that sexual selection increases plumage elaboration in males but not females, driving overall dichromatism. In contrast, predation risk more strongly affected female plumage, limiting brightness in species with exposed nests and female-only incubation. Similarly, social competition for year-round territories predicted greater plumage elaboration in both sexes, particularly in females. Our findings show that sexual dichromatism arises not only through sexual selection on male ornamentation, but also via natural and social selection pressures, which have greatest effect on female plumage evolution.
Full text 2,175 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. Sexual dichromatism in birds may evolve via sexual selection for increased elaboration in male plumage (Darwin hypothesis) or, alternatively, by natural selection for increased crypsis in female plumage (Wallace hypothesis). Both these effects may be counteracted by social competition promoting ornamentation in females. However, the relative roles of sexual, natural, and social selection in shaping patterns of plumage dichromatism have proved difficult to disentangle. To test these hypotheses in conjunction, we estimated the strength of sexual selection on males, the level of predation risk on females and the intensity of social selection across 1283 species of suboscine passerines. We then used phylogenetic analyses to evaluate the drivers of sex differences in plumage elaboration and brightness. The results confirm that sexual selection increases plumage elaboration in males but not females, driving overall dichromatism. In contrast, predation risk more strongly affected female plumage, limiting brightness in species with exposed nests and female-only incubation. Similarly, social competition for year-round territories predicted greater plumage elaboration in both sexes, particularly in females. Our findings show that sexual dichromatism arises not only through sexual selection on male ornamentation, but also via natural and social selection pressures, which have greatest effect on female plumage evolution. https://doi.org/10.32942/X22Q1V Life Sciences sexual selection, natural selection, social selection, signal ornamentation, mating system, nest visibility, predation, territoriality, habitat density, body mass Published: 2026-04-01 15:28 Last Updated: 2026-04-01 15:28 CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-20T11:00:21.680559+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0