Author
Listed:
- Manuel Soler
- Tomás Pérez-Contreras
- Liesbeth de Neve
Abstract
Parent–offspring conflict theory predicts that offspring desertion would be adaptive for parents when the fitness costs related to investment in the current brood exceed the expected fitness benefits. In several seabirds, a fixed parental care period has been observed, and a preprogrammed fixed parental care period could be a general life-history trait evolved because of parent–offspring conflict. A recent study suggested that this could also be the mechanism by which hosts could discriminate against brood parasitic chicks that need longer care periods, by abandoning a brood when the parental care period passed the one typically needed by their own brood (i.e., discrimination without recognition). Here, we experimentally tested if a fixed parental care period also existed in magpies (Pica pica), the primary host of the great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius). None of the experimentally prolonged magpie broods were deserted, and neither were any of the control or shortened broods. These results suggest that a preprogrammed parental care period is not a general trait in birds and support the idea that brood parasitism could be a selective pressure for optimal (short) parental care periods to evolve, but only in species where brood parasitic nestlings need a longer care period than host nestlings (which was not the case for the great spotted cuckoo). Furthermore, nestlings reared by parents with prolonged parental care period showed a slower development. Increasing provisioning costs, reduced sensitiveness to begging signals, or sexual conflict could cause this result, upholding parental care periods as a challenging matter of research.
Suggested Citation
Manuel Soler & Tomás Pérez-Contreras & Liesbeth de Neve, 2013.
"Magpies do not desert after prolonging the parental care period: an experimental study,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(6), pages 1292-1298.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:24:y:2013:i:6:p:1292-1298.
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:24:y:2013:i:6:p:1292-1298.. 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.