IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i5p1102-1107..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parent–offspring conflict during the transition to independence in a pelagic seabird

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Riou
  • Olivier Chastel
  • Keith C Hamer

Abstract

The transition to independence is a critical period of development and a focus of parent–offspring conflict over the optimum level of parental care, but there is continuing uncertainty over how much this transition is influenced by parents or offspring. We experimentally cross-fostered Manx shearwater chicks differing in age by 10–14 days and tested two predictions: 1) food-provisioning rate in the period leading up to fledging is related to the duration of parental care rather than to the age of chicks; 2) parents protect themselves from exploitative offspring by becoming insensitive to begging behavior of chicks over the period leading up to fledging. We also examined whether fledging age was under endogenous hormonal control or influenced mainly by parents. Switching chicks had no effect on fledging age, which was mainly controlled by an internal mechanism linked to a marked and rapid increase in corticosterone secretion, with no difference among treatments in the timing or magnitude of this increase. In contrast, parents reduced their frequency of food delivery according to the number of days elapsed since they started provisioning, regardless of age of chicks and despite younger foster chicks having lower body condition and begging more intensely than older foster chicks or controls. These data provide clear experimental evidence of parent–offspring conflict over parental feeding frequency in late chick development and hence chick body condition at fledging. As predicted, parents resolved this conflict in their favor by responding much less to begging over the period prior to fledging than at earlier stages of chick development.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Riou & Olivier Chastel & Keith C Hamer, 2012. "Parent–offspring conflict during the transition to independence in a pelagic seabird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(5), pages 1102-1107.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:5:p:1102-1107.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/ars079
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rudy M. Jonker & Marije W. Kuiper & Lysanne Snijders & Sipke E. Van Wieren & Ron C. Ydenberg & Herbert H.T. Prins, 2011. "Divergence in timing of parental care and migration in barnacle geese," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(2), pages 326-331.
    2. Douglas W. Mock & Matthew B. Dugas & Stephanie A. Strickler, 2011. "Honest begging: expanding from Signal of Need," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(5), pages 909-917.
    3. Vallo Tilgar & Kadri Moks & Pauli Saag, 2011. "Predator-induced stress changes parental feeding behavior in pied flycatchers," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(1), pages 23-28.
    4. Staffan Jacob & Guillaume Rieucau & Philipp Heeb, 2011. "Multimodal begging signals reflect independent indices of nestling condition in European starlings," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(6), pages 1249-1255.
    5. Keith C. Hamer & Petra Quillfeldt & Juan F. Masello & Kathy L. Fletcher, 2006. "Sex differences in provisioning rules: responses of Manx shearwaters to supplementary chick feeding," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(1), pages 132-137, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lotem, Arnon & Biran-Yoeli, Inbar, 2014. "Evolution of learning and levels of selection: A lesson from avian parent–offspring communication," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 58-74.
    2. Kimberley J. Mathot & Josue David Arteaga-Torres & Anne Besson & Deborah M. Hawkshaw & Natasha Klappstein & Rebekah A. McKinnon & Sheeraja Sridharan & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2024. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of unimodal and multimodal predation risk assessment in birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Daniel Parejo-Pulido & Lorenzo Pérez-Rodríguez & Inmaculada Abril-Colón & Jaime Potti & Tomás Redondo, 2023. "Passive and active parental food allocation in a songbird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 729-740.
    5. Paula Ferrer-Pereira & Ester Martínez-Renau & Manuel Martín-Vivaldi & Juan José Soler, 2023. "Food supply and provisioning behavior of parents: Are small hoopoe nestlings condemned to die?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(6), pages 992-1001.
    6. Matthew Low & Troy Makan & Isabel Castro, 2012. "Food availability and offspring demand influence sex-specific patterns and repeatability of parental provisioning," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 25-34.

    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:23:y:2012:i:5:p:1102-1107.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.