IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i4p821-829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing

Author

Listed:
  • Paul G. McDonald
  • David R. Wilson
  • Christopher S. Evans

Abstract

Models of parent--offspring conflict and nestling begging honesty often assume that signaling is associated with increased predation risk. However, little evidence exists that begging actually increases predation in the context in which it evolved, especially when the potentially modulating effects of parental defense are taken into account. We measured the cost of begging in cooperatively breeding bell miners (Manorina melanophrys) by baiting 168 inactive nests with a wax egg and broadcasting sounds from nearby speakers. Nests were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: silence, unmanipulated begging calls, or shaped white noise pulses that matched the amplitude envelope of each corresponding begging call. Moreover, half of the nests were placed outside and half inside bell miner colonies, where miners vigorously mob potential nest predators. Predation was not influenced by vegetation cover, distance of the nest from the speaker, or placement inside the colony. Sounds were costly, however, as nests broadcasting begging signals or white noise were predated more often and more quickly than silent controls. Contrary to theoretical predictions regarding "stealthy" design, we found that predators were just as likely to locate nests with broadband white noise playback as nests broadcasting begging signals. Further, there was an interaction between playback amplitude and predator type (avian vs. rodent): Louder playback led to decreased nest survival for those taken by avian predators. As increased begging drives provisioning rates in many species, including bell miners, this reveals an inescapable trade-off between nestling begging intensity, parental provisioning effort, and predation risk. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul G. McDonald & David R. Wilson & Christopher S. Evans, 2009. "Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(4), pages 821-829.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:4:p:821-829
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp066
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Szabolcs Számadó & Dániel Czégel & István Zachar, 2019. "One problem, too many solutions: How costly is honest signalling of need?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Valentijn van den Brink & Vassilissa Dolivo & Xavier Falourd & Amélie N. Dreiss & Alexandre Roulin, 2012. "Melanic color-dependent antipredator behavior strategies in barn owl nestlings," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 473-480.
    3. Lies Zandberg & Jolle W. Jolles & Neeltje J. Boogert & Alex Thornton, 2014. "Jackdaw nestlings can discriminate between conspecific calls but do not beg specifically to their parents," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(3), pages 565-573.
    4. Ariane Mutzel & Anne-Lise Olsen & Kimberley J Mathot & Yimen G Araya-Ajoy & Marion Nicolaus & Jan J Wijmenga & Jonathan Wright & Bart Kempenaers & Niels J Dingemanse, 2019. "Effects of manipulated levels of predation threat on parental provisioning and nestling begging," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(4), pages 1123-1135.

    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:20:y:2009:i:4:p:821-829. 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.