A commonly held principle in visual ecology is that communication compromises camouflage: while visual signals are often conspicuous, camouflage provides concealment. However, some traits may have evolved for communication and camouflage simultaneously, thereby overcoming this functional compromise. Visual patterns generally provide camouflage, but it was suggested that a particular type of visual pattern – avian barred plumage – could also be a signal of individual quality. Here, we test if the evolution of sexual dimorphism in barred plumage, as well as differences between juvenile and adult plumage, indicate camouflage and/or signalling functions across the class Aves. We found a higher frequency of female‐ rather than male‐biased sexual dimorphism in barred plumage, indicating that camouflage is its most common function. But we also found that, compared to other pigmentation patterns, barred plumage is more frequently biased towards males and its expression more frequently restricted to adulthood, suggesting that barred plumage often evolves or is maintained as a sexual communication signal. This illustrates how visual traits can accommodate the apparently incompatible functions of camouflage and communication, which has implications for our understanding of avian visual ecology and sexual ornamentation.

Patterns, such as bars and spots, are common in birds. Some patterns can function in camouflage and/or communication and can benefit both males and females, paving the way for elaboration in sexual dimorphism. Historically, sexual dichromatism was predominantly considered to be a consequence of mating systems. However, the distribution of traits between the sexes is not always indicative of function; genetic correlation may cause traits to evolve in both sexes and traits may serve a social function in males and/or females. In addition, sexual dichromatism in bird plumage patterns can be composed of multiple types of patterns within and/or between the sexes. Therefore, there can be more than one type of dimorphism and some are more elaborate than others. Under classical models of genetic correlation, patterns evolve in both sexes followed by a loss of patterning in one sex. Elaborate types of sexual dimorphism in plumage patterns may be due to selection acting on existing patterns and are perhaps derived. Waterfowl (Anseriformes) and gamebirds (Galliformes) arguably have the most striking plumage patterns. Using 288 species from these orders I reconstructed the evolutionary history of plumage pattern dimorphism. There was little support for genetic correlation but elaborate types of dimorphism are probably derived. Backward and forward evolutionary transitions between different types of dimorphism can occur by loss or elaboration. These results demonstrate that plumage patterns are evolutionary labile and current forms may represent shifting adaptations to a changing environment. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, 111, 262–273.

No abstract

BackgroundAvian plumage is ideal for investigating phenotypic convergence because of repeated evolution of the same within-feather patterns. In birds, there are three major types of regular patterns within feathers: scales, bars and spots. Existing models of within-feather pattern development suggest that scales have the simplest developmental mechanism, bars require more stringent regulation than scales, and spots have the strictest developmental parameters. We hypothesized that increasing stringency in the mechanism of pattern formation predicts the evolutionary trajectory of patterns, and hence scales should evolve first, followed by bars and finally spots. Here, using Bayesian phylogenetic modeling we reconstructed pattern evolution in the most spectacularly patterned avian clades – aquatic waterfowl (Anseriformes) and terrestrial gamebirds (Galliformes).ResultsOur analyses suggest that the ancestral state of plumage is an absence of patterns, but with some variability. Independent analyses of seven feather patches reveal that spots evolve after bars and scales. However, both scales and bars evolve frequently from an absence of patterns, contradicting our predictions. Over the whole body, many constraints are conserved from the level of patches, for example the largest number of steps from the ancestral state was required for spots to evolve.ConclusionsOverall there was remarkable similarity in the inferred evolutionary trajectories of plumage pattern evolution in Galliformes and Anseriformes, suggesting that developmental constraint is similar in these two orders, despite large ecological differences. These evolutionary transitions are largely congruent with a reaction–diffusion based model of pattern formation, but the evolution of bars from an unpatterned ancestor is more common than expected. Our study highlights the promise of testing models of development using comparative methods.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-016-0741-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.