IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i1p1-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addition of arthropod cocoons to house wren nests is correlated with delayed pairing

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin P. Eckerle
  • Charles F. Thompson

Abstract

Males in the cavity-nesting house wren (Troglodytes aedon) frequently add arthropod cocoons to their nests during building, possibly as an ornamental cue for female choice. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the time to pairing for males that did and did not add cocoons to their nests and for males in whose nests we manipulated the number of cocoons prior to pairing. We also tested the hypothesis that females acquire fitness-related benefits by selecting mates based on their use of cocoons. The use of cocoons by males was not consistently related to habitat, but the number of cocoons added per nest increased during the course of the breeding season. Contrary to prediction, the time to pairing for males adding cocoons was significantly longer than that for males without cocoons in their nests at both unmanipulated and experimental nests. There was also no consistent fitness-related benefit for females related to the use of cocoons by their mates. Therefore, we conclude that females did not prefer males that added cocoons to their nests, and that the increased time to pairing for males that add cocoons likely results in fitness-related costs brought about by delayed breeding. Nonetheless, male house wrens routinely use cocoons, and why they do so remains unknown. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin P. Eckerle & Charles F. Thompson, 2005. "Addition of arthropod cocoons to house wren nests is correlated with delayed pairing," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 1-7, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:1-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh122
    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.

    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:16:y:2005:i:1:p:1-7. 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.