Abstract
Smell is a sensory modality that is rarely considered in birds, but evidence is mounting that olfaction is an important aspect of avian behaviour and ecology. The uropygial gland produces an odoriferous secretion (preen oil) that can differ seasonally and between the sexes. These differences are hypothesized to function in olfactory camouflage, i.e. minimizing detection by nest predators (olfactory crypsis hypothesis), and/or intraspecific olfactory communication, particularly during breeding (sex semiochemical hypothesis). However, evidence for seasonal and sex differences in preen oil is mixed, with some studies finding differences and others not, and direct evidence for the putative function(s) of seasonal variation and sex differences in preen oil remains limited. We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for such changes in preen oil chemical composition, finding seasonal differences in 95% of species (57/60 species in 35 studies) and sex differences in 47% of species (28/59 species in 46 studies). We then conducted phylogenetic comparative analyses using data from 59 bird species to evaluate evidence for both the olfactory crypsis and sex semiochemical hypotheses. Seasonal differences were more likely in the incubating than non-incubating sex in ground-nesting species, but were equally likely regardless of incubation strategy in non-ground-nesting species. This result supports the olfactory crypsis hypothesis, if ground nesters are more vulnerable to olfactorily searching predators than non-ground nesters. Sex differences were more likely in species with uniparental than biparental incubation and during breeding than non-breeding, consistent with both the olfactory crypsis and sex semiochemical hypotheses. At present, the data do not allow us to disentangle these two hypotheses, but we provide recommendations that will enable researchers to do so.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1193-1209 |
Number of pages | 17 |
Journal | Biological Reviews |
Volume | 97 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 6 Feb 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 30 Jun 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We thank the Wissenschaftskolleg Berlin for the time to formulate ideas (B.A.C., I.C.C., T.S.), two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved this manuscript, J. Winternitz for advice on statistical analysis, D. Whittaker for helpful discussion, and F. Bonadonna and J. Reneerkens for sharing information. This study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through a Discovery Grant to E.A.M.-S. and a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship to L.A.G. B.A.C. was funded through a Freigeist-Fellowship from the Volkswagen Foundation and M.G. was funded by the German Science Foundation (421568765). Illustrations in Figs?2 and 3 were created by M.G.
Funding Information:
We thank the Wissenschaftskolleg Berlin for the time to formulate ideas (B.A.C., I.C.C., T.S.), two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved this manuscript, J. Winternitz for advice on statistical analysis, D. Whittaker for helpful discussion, and F. Bonadonna and J. Reneerkens for sharing information. This study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through a Discovery Grant to E.A.M.‐S. and a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship to L.A.G. B.A.C. was funded through a Freigeist‐Fellowship from the Volkswagen Foundation and M.G. was funded by the German Science Foundation (421568765). Illustrations in Figs 2 and 3 were created by M.G.
Keywords
- bird odour
- chemical cues
- infochemicals
- mate recognition
- olfaction
- parental care
- preen oil
- scent
- sexual selection
- uropygial gland secretion
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
- General Agricultural and Biological Sciences