IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v25y2014i3p496-503..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Signals of need and quality: Atlantic puffin chicks can beg and boast

Author

Listed:
  • Megan E. Rector
  • Carolyn J. Walsh
  • Amy-Lee Kouwenberg
  • Michelle G. Fitzsimmons
  • Anne E. Storey

Abstract

Need and hunger models of honest begging predict that lower-quality offspring should call more, or beg, to signal their poor body condition or hunger. In contrast, quality models of begging predict that offspring of higher fitness should call more, or boast, to signal their viability to parents. We observed 2 types of calls in Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) chicks: a shorter peep call and a longer screech call. Poorly fed chicks screeched during a higher proportion of parental visits than well-fed chicks. Food-supplemented chicks showed a decrease in the proportion of food visits with screech calls, whereas control chicks did not. Chicks in good body condition peeped more than chicks in poor body condition and these chicks showed a greater increase in the peep call rate after supplemental feeding than chicks that started off in poorer condition. Screech calls may signal need and/or hunger to parents, whereas peep calls may signal chick quality. This combination of signals should allow parents to make strategic resource-based decisions, allocating more food to hungry or lower-quality chicks when resources are abundant and preferentially feeding high-quality chicks when resources are scarce.

Suggested Citation

  • Megan E. Rector & Carolyn J. Walsh & Amy-Lee Kouwenberg & Michelle G. Fitzsimmons & Anne E. Storey, 2014. "Signals of need and quality: Atlantic puffin chicks can beg and boast," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(3), pages 496-503.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:496-503.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru009
    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.

    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:25:y:2014:i:3:p:496-503.. 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.