Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (25)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McNamara, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Osorno, J.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McNamara, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Osorno, J.-L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 14 No. 3: 301-310
© 2003 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Should young ever be better off with one parent than with two?

John M. McNamaraa, Alasdair I. Houstona,, Zoltán Bartaa,b and José-Luis Osornoc

a Centre for Behavioural Biology, University of Bristol, UK b Department of Evolutionary Zoology, University of Debrecen, Hungary c Instituto de Ecologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico

Address correspondence to A.I. Houston. E-mail: a.i.houston{at}bristol.ac.uk.

We analyze models of parental care, providing the first systematic comparison of the care given to young by one parent versus by two parents. In the Houston-Davies model of care, young always do better with two parents rather than with one parent. When one parent decides about its level of care before the other, then the young may do better with one parent when the costs of care for the parents are asymmetric. When the level of parental effort is reached by negotiation, there are cases in which young do better with one parent, even when costs are symmetric. The analysis suggests empirical ways to differentiate between different response rules.

Key words: game theory, mate removal, negotiation, parental effort.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
R. J.S. Ward, S. C. Cotter, and R. M. Kilner
Current brood size and residual reproductive value predict offspring desertion in the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2009; 20(6): 1274 - 1281.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
A. Z. Lendvai, Z. Barta, and O. Chastel
Conflict over parental care in house sparrows: do females use a negotiation rule?
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2009; 20(3): 651 - 656.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
R. A. Johnstone and C. A. Hinde
Negotiation over offspring care--how should parents respond to each other's efforts?
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2006; 17(5): 818 - 827.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
A. Kun, G. Boza, and I. Scheuring
Asynchronous snowdrift game with synergistic effect as a model of cooperation
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 633 - 641.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
J. M. McNamara, E. M.K. Wilson, and A. I. Houston
Is it better to give information, receive it, or be ignorant in a two-player game?
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2006; 17(3): 441 - 451.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
M. A Cant and S.-F. Shen
Endogenous timing in competitive interactions among relatives
Proc R Soc B, January 22, 2006; 273(1583): 171 - 178.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
K. C. Hamer, P. Quillfeldt, J. F. Masello, and K. L. Fletcher
Sex differences in provisioning rules: responses of Manx shearwaters to supplementary chick feeding
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 132 - 137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
P. T. Smiseth and A. J. Moore
Behavioral dynamics between caring males and females in a beetle with facultative biparental care
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2004; 15(4): 621 - 628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.