Pairing Behavior of the Monogamous King Quail, Coturnix chinensis

Abstract

Animals with socially monogamous mating systems are valuable for discovering proximate mechanisms of prosocial behavior and close social relationships. Especially powerful are comparisons between related species that differ in monogamous tendency. Birds are the most socially monogamous vertebrates. Thus far most research on mechanisms of pairing has used zebra finches, which do not have a relative with a different mating system, however. The goal of the experiments reported here was to develop a new comparative avian system by studying the pairing behavior of a reportedly strongly monogamous quail, the king quail (Coturnix chinensis), a species in the same clade as the less monogamous Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), the subject of much prior research. In Experiment 1 male-female pairs of king quail housed together were initially avoidant or aggressive but most rapidly progressed to allopreening and huddling. A separation-reunion paradigm reliably elicited both of these behaviors in males that had cohabited for one week. In Experiment 2 the allopreening and huddling behavior of males in cohabiting pairs was highly selective, and a majority of the males were aggressive toward a familiar female that was not the cohabitation partner. In Experiment 3 males were separated from their female cohabitation partners for 9–10 weeks and then given two-choice tests. All but one male spent more time near an unfamiliar female, which may have reflected aggression and shows recognition of and memory for the past pairing experience. Thus king quail show robust, selective and easy to measure pairing behavior that can be reliably elicited with simple separation-reunion testing procedures. Copulation is rarely seen during tests. The behavior of king quail is a striking contrast to that of Japanese quail, providing a new comparative system for discovering mechanisms of behavior related to close social relationships and monogamy.

Variation in social systems within Chaetodon butterflyfishes, with special reference to pair bonding

“…These inter-species comparison also potentially illuminate principles for the taxon that may not be apparent in a single species [ 41 , 42 ]. While systems for comparatively studying the mechanisms of pair bonding were originally limited to a single genus of mammal, Microtus voles [ 43 , 44 ], additional comparative systems for other taxon within mammals and other major lineages have recently emerged: mammals: Peromyscus mice [ 45 ]; birds: Coturnix quails [ 46 ]; teleosts: Neolamprologus , Telmatochromis [ 47 ] and Herichthys [ 48 ] cichlids; and Hawaiian butterflyfishes [ 49 ]. If we are to understand the deep evolutionary history of pair bonding mechanisms and identify general principals, then additional model systems need to be established across major vertebrate lineages.…”

Skeletal development in blue‐breasted quail embryos

“…Thus, the use of the blue‐breasted quail as an avian model allows researchers to reduce the cost, space, and labor for breeding. Because of these advantages, the blue‐breasted quail has been used in the various research fields, for example, developmental biology, genetics, reproduction, behavior, and immunology for more than 20 years (Adkins‐Regan, ; Araguas, Sanz, Viñas, & Vidal, ; Kageyama, Takenouchi, Kinoshita, Nakamura, & Tsudzuki, ; Ma et al., ; Nishibori, Tsudzuki, Hayashi, Yamamoto, & Yasue, ; Ono et al., ; Parker et al., ; Tsudzuki, , ; Wells, Parker, Kiess, & McDaniel, ).…”

Butterflyfishes as a System for Investigating Pair Bonding

“…While systems for comparatively studying the mechanisms of pair bonding were originally limited to a single genus of mammal, Microtus voles [43,44], additional comparative systems for other taxon within mammals and other major lineages have recently emerged: mammals: Peromyscus mice [45]; birds: Coturnix quails [46]; teleosts: Neolamprologus, Telmatochromis [47] and Herichthys [48] cichlids. A challenge among all established comparative pair bonding systems is that in one system or another, species differences in pairing phenotype co-vary with differences in other attributes, including parental care, general social affiliation, and territoriality [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Since shared neuroendocrine mechanisms have been shown to regulate all of these attributes [8,54], it is difficult to use these systems to isolate independent causal mechanisms of pair bonding without additional experimental validation being required.…”

“…Whereas, interspecies comparisons within a taxon; when controlling for aforementioned confounds and phylogenetic relatedness; can inform mechanistic correlates related to how social systems have evolved across phylogenetic time [38][39][40], potentially illuminating general principles for the taxon that may not be apparent in a single species [41,42]. While systems for comparatively studying the mechanisms of pair bonding were originally limited to a single genus of mammal, Microtus voles [43,44], additional comparative systems for other taxon within mammals and other major lineages have recently emerged: mammals: Peromyscus mice [45]; birds: Coturnix quails [46]; teleosts: Neolamprologus, Telmatochromis [47] and Herichthys [48] cichlids. A challenge among all established comparative pair bonding systems is that in one system or another, species differences in pairing phenotype co-vary with differences in other attributes, including parental care, general social affiliation, and territoriality [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53].…”

“…To do so, we focused on features that are routinely recognized as characteristic of pair bonding across taxa, that are useful for distinguishing pair bonding from non-pair bonding phenotypes, and that are ecologically relevant to butterflyfishes. These features include i) the predominance of group sizes of 2 individuals [74,[83][84][85][86], ii) selective affiliation with a distinct partner [22,83,84], which in the case of fishes may be expressed as proximate and parallel (i.e., "pair") swimming [58,87], iii) selective aggression towards non-partners [24,35,46,67], iv) predominantly heterosexual pair composition [14,32,58,[87][88][89], and v) long-term partner fidelity/endurance [14, 58, 70, 71, 83-85, 90, 91]. Specifically, we tested the predictions that 3 species would predominantly occur in heterosexual, enduring pairs that exhibit selective affiliation towards partners over non-partners, and selective agonism towards non-partners over partners; whereas 3 would predominantly occur in solitude, and exhibit infrequent and indiscriminate affiliation with another individual.…”