Peafowl
Peafowl is a common name for two bird species of the genus Pavo and one species of the closely related genus Afropavo within the tribe Pavonini of the family Phasianidae. Male peafowl are referred to as peacocks, and female peafowl are referred to as peahens. Despite this, peacock is usually used to refer to both sexes, in common language.
The two Asiatic species are the blue or Indian peafowl originally from the Indian subcontinent, and the green peafowl from Southeast Asia. The third peafowl species, the Congo peafowl, is native only to the Congo Basin. Male peafowl are known for their piercing calls and their extravagant plumage. The latter is especially prominent in the Asiatic species, which have an eye-spotted "tail" or "train" of covert feathers, which they display as part of a courtship ritual.
The functions of the elaborate iridescent coloration and large "train" of peacocks have been the subject of extensive scientific debate. Charles Darwin suggested that they served to attract females, and the showy features of the males had evolved by sexual selection. More recently, Amotz Zahavi proposed in his handicap principle that these features acted as honest signals of the males' fitness, since less-fit males would be disadvantaged by the difficulty of surviving with such large and conspicuous structures.
Description
The Indian peacock has iridescent blue and green plumage, mostly metal-like blue and green. In both species, females are a little smaller than males in terms of weight and wingspan, but males are significantly longer due to the "tail", also known as a "train". The peacock train consists not of tail quill feathers but highly elongated upper tail coverts. These feathers are marked with eyespots, best seen when a peacock fans his tail. All species have a crest atop the head. The Indian peahen has a mixture of dull grey, brown, and green in her plumage. The female also displays her plumage to ward off female competition or signal danger to her young.Male green peafowls have green and bronze or gold plumage, and black wings with a sheen of blue. Unlike Indian peafowl, the green peahen is similar to the male, but has shorter upper tail coverts, a more coppery neck, and overall less iridescence. Both males and females have spurs.
The Congo peacock male does not display his covert feathers, but uses his actual tail feathers during courtship displays. These feathers are much shorter than those of the Indian and green species, and the ocelli are much less pronounced. Females of the Indian and African species are dull grey and/or brown.
Chicks of both sexes in all the species are cryptically colored. They vary between yellow and tawny, usually with patches of darker brown or light tan and "dirty white" ivory.
Mature peahens have been recorded as suddenly growing typically male peacock plumage and making male calls. Research has suggested that changes in mature birds are due to a lack of estrogen from old or damaged ovaries, and that male plumage and calls are the default unless hormonally suppressed.
Iridescence and structural coloration
As with many birds, vibrant iridescent plumage colors are not primarily pigments, but structural coloration. Optical interference of Bragg reflections, from regular, periodic nanostructures of the barbules of the feathers, produce the peacock's colors. Slight changes to the spacing of the barbules result in different colors. Brown feathers are a mixture of red and blue: one color is created by the periodic structure and the other is created by a Fabry–Pérot interference peak from reflections from the outer and inner boundaries. Color derived from physical structure rather than pigment can vary with viewing angle, causing iridescence.Courtship
Most commonly, during a courtship display, the visiting peahen will stop directly in front of the peacock, thus providing her with the ability to assess the male at 90° to the surface of the feather. Then, the male will turn and display his feathers about 45° to the right of the sun's azimuth which allows the sunlight to accentuate the iridescence of his train. If the female chooses to interact with the male, he will then turn to face her and shiver his train so as to begin the mating process.Evolution
Sexual selection
suggested in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex that peafowl plumage may have evolved through sexual selection:Aposematism and natural selection
It has been suggested that a peacock's train, loud call, and fearless behavior have been formed by natural selection, and served as an aposematic display to intimidate predators and rivals. This hypothesis is designed to explain Takahashi's observations that in Japan, neither reproductive success nor physical condition correlate with the train's length, symmetry or number of eyespots.Female choice
Multiple hypotheses involving female choice have been posited. One hypothesis is that females choose mates with good genes. Males with more exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, such as bigger, brighter peacock trains, tend to have better genes in the peahen's eyes. These better genes directly benefit her offspring, as well as her fitness and reproductive success.Runaway selection is another hypothesis. In runaway sexual selection, linked genes in males and females code for sexually dimorphic traits in males, and preference for those traits in females. The close spatial association of alleles for loci involved in the train in males, and for preference for more exuberant trains in females, on the chromosome causes a positive feedback loop that exaggerates both the male traits and the female preferences.
Another hypothesis is sensory bias, in which females have a preference for a trait in a non-mating context that becomes transferred to mating, such as Merle Jacobs' food-courtship hypothesis, which suggests that peahens are attracted to peacocks for the resemblance of their eye spots to blue berries.
Multiple causalities for the evolution of female choice are also possible.
The peacock's train and iridescent plumage are perhaps the best-known examples of traits believed to have arisen through sexual selection, though with some controversy. Male peafowl erect their trains to form a shimmering fan in their display for females. Marion Petrie tested whether or not these displays signalled a male's genetic quality by studying a feral population of peafowl in Whipsnade Wildlife Park in southern England. The number of eyespots in the train predicted a male's mating success. She was able to manipulate this success by cutting the eyespots off some of the males' tails: females lost interest in pruned males and retained interest in untrimmed ones. Males with fewer eyespots, thus having lower mating success, suffered from greater predation. She allowed females to mate with males with differing numbers of eyespots, and reared the offspring in a communal incubator to control for differences in maternal care. Chicks fathered by more ornamented males weighed more than those fathered by less ornamented males, an attribute generally associated with better survival rate in birds. These chicks were released into the park and recaptured one year later. Those with heavily ornamented feathers were better able to avoid predators and survive in natural conditions. Thus, Petrie's work shows correlations between tail ornamentation, mating success, and increased survival ability in both the ornamented males and their offspring.
Furthermore, peafowl and their sexual characteristics have been used in the discussion of the causes for sexual traits. Amotz Zahavi used the excessive tail plumes of male peafowls as evidence for his "handicap principle". Since these trains are likely to be deleterious to an individual's survival, Zahavi argued that only the fittest males could survive the handicap of a large train. Thus, a brilliant train serves as an honest indicator for females that these highly ornamented males are good at surviving for other reasons, so are preferable mates. This theory may be contrasted with Ronald Fisher's hypothesis that male sexual traits are the result of initially arbitrary aesthetic selection by females.
In contrast to Petrie's findings, a seven-year Japanese study of free-ranging peafowl concluded that female peafowl do not select mates solely on the basis of their trains. Mariko Takahashi found no evidence that peahens preferred peacocks with more elaborate trains, a more symmetrical arrangement, or a greater length. Takahashi determined that the peacock's train was not the universal target of female mate choice, showed little variance across male populations, and did not correlate with male physiological condition. Adeline Loyau and her colleagues responded that alternative and possibly central explanations for these results had been overlooked. They concluded that female choice might indeed vary in different ecological conditions.