IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v13y2002i2p274-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clutch size variation in the Nazca booby: a test of the egg quality hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • L. D. Clifford
  • D. J. Anderson

Abstract

In obligately siblicidal bird species, aggressive behavior by a dominant chick results in a fixed brood size of one, yet these species usually show clutch size variation between individuals. Simmons proposed that variation in clutch size in obligately siblicidal species is related to a trade-off between egg quality and egg quantity: some individuals produce a single highly hatchable egg, while others produce two small, lower quality eggs. We tested the egg quality hypothesis as an explanation for observed clutch size variation in the Nazca booby (Sula granti), an obligately siblicidal seabird. We tested the assumption that egg volume is positively correlated with hatchability and the prediction that eggs from one-egg clutches are larger than eggs from two-egg clutches. We did not find a positive relationship between egg volume and hatchability in this species. Eggs from two-egg clutches were either equivalent in volume or larger than eggs from one-egg clutches. Thus, the egg quality hypothesis was rejected as an explanation for clutch size variation in the Nazca booby. Instead, two-egg clutches appear to be favored because of the insurance value of the second-laid egg, while one-egg clutches result from food limitation. Copyright 2002.

Suggested Citation

  • L. D. Clifford & D. J. Anderson, 2002. "Clutch size variation in the Nazca booby: a test of the egg quality hypothesis," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(2), pages 274-279, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:2:p:274-279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:2:p:274-279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.