Author
Listed:
- Megan Dickens
- Ian R. Hartley
Abstract
Evolutionary conflicts of interest between family members are expected to influence patterns of parental investment. In altricial birds, despite providing the same kind of parental care, patterns of investment in different offspring can differ between parents, a situation termed parentally biased favoritism. Previous explanations for parentally biased favoritism have received mixed theoretical and empirical support. Here, we test the prediction that in blue tits, Cyanistes caeruleus, females bias their food allocation rules to favor the smallest offspring during the nestling stage. By doing so, females could increase the subsequent amount of paternal care supplied by their partner during the fledging period, as a previous study showed that males feed the largest fledglings. When size differences within the brood are less pronounced, all offspring will require similar amounts of postfledging care, and thus, the male parent will lose the advantage of caring for the largest offspring that are closest to independence. In this study, we controlled the hunger of the smallest and largest nestlings in the brood and compared the food allocation rules of the 2 parents. We found that the male parent had a stronger preference than the female to feed the closest nestlings and made no distinction between nestlings based on size, whereas the female provisioned small hungry nestlings more when they were at intermediate distances from her. These differences in parental food allocation rules are consistent with predictions based on sexual conflict over postfledging parental investment. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Megan Dickens & Ian R. Hartley, 2007.
"Differences in parental food allocation rules: evidence for sexual conflict in the blue tit?,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(4), pages 674-679.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:18:y:2007:i:4:p:674-679
Download full text from publisher
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:18:y:2007:i:4:p:674-679. 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.