Cited by 75Animal Behavior and ReproductionAvian ecology and behaviorEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Eye for an eyespot: how iridescent plumage ocelli influence peacock mating success

Open access
Dakin, Roslyn, Montgomerie, Robert·2013·Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Each of the multicolored eyespots (ocelli) on the peacock’s (Pavo cristatus) train is a complex structure with a purple-black center surrounded by concentric blue-green and bronze-gold regions. To investigate the influence of all 3 of these colors on male mating success, we used a physiological model of peafowl vision to quantify those colors as females would perceive them during male courtship displays. Males display at about 45° to the right of the sun’s azimuth (on average) with the female directly in front, so we investigated how colors would be perceived when illuminated at 30°, 45°, and 60° to the right of a female observer. We studied 34 males displaying at leks in 3 feral populations and quantified their copulation success and the colors of their eyespots. Eyespot coloration explained half of the observed variation in peacock mating success, with the hue and iridescence of the blue-green patch being the most important color variables. When we experimentally masked ocelli on 9 males, their copulation success declined almost to 0, supporting the idea that the eyespots are a major focus of female attention and not a trait that is simply correlated with something else that influences female choice. Thus, our study shows that the blue-green eyespot color overwhelmingly influences peacock mating success. The influence of the other eyespot colors on male success is minimal at best, raising questions about their function.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/art045

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dakin, R., & Montgomerie, R.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2013
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
1048-1057
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
OpenAlex
W2128865145
Cited by
75
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
ocelli, iridescence, plumage coloration, female mate choice, male mating success, courtship display, lek mating system, color perception, mating success, sexual selection, feral populations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review