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 (14)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Öst, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lindström, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Öst, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lindström, K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 14 No. 3: 311-317
© 2003 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Condition and coalition formation by brood-rearing common eider females

Markus Östa,, Ron Ydenbergb, Mikael Kilpic and Kai Lindströma

a Department of Ecology and Systematics, P.O. Box 65, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland b Behavioral Ecology Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada c Aronia Research Centre, bo Akademi University & Sydväst Polytechnic, Raseborgsvägen 6–8, FIN-10600 Ekenäs, Finland

Address correspondence to M. Öst. E-mail: markus.ost{at}helsinki.fi.

Partner choice is important in nature, and partnerships or coalitions within which reproduction is shared are the subject of growing interest. However, little attention has been given to questions of which individuals are suitable partners and why. Common eider (Somateria mollissima) females sometimes pool their broods and share brood-rearing duties, and body condition affects care decisions. We constructed a model in which females, based on their body condition and the structure of the joint brood, assess the fitness consequences of joining a coalition versus tending for young alone. We tested the model's predictions by comparing data on the condition of females in enduring and transient coalitions. Our model showed that the range of acceptable brood arrays in a female coalition decreases with increasing condition of the female, so females tending alone should be in better condition than multifemale tenders. This prediction is in agreement with previous data. The model also predicts that females in good condition should join coalitions with females in poor condition and not with other females in good condition. This prediction was also supported by data: in enduring two-female coalitions, the positive correlation between the better female's condition and the difference in condition between the two females was stronger than would be expected by random grouping of females. In contrast, in transient coalitions of females, this correlation did not differ from the correlation expected under random grouping. Model assumptions seem to fit with eider natural history, and the model may prove to be a useful way to study brood amalgamation behavior of waterfowl in general.

Key words: body condition, brood amalgamation, coalitions, common eider, parental care, partner choice, solitary tending, Somateria mollissima.


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
P. Waldeck, M. Andersson, M. Kilpi, and M. Ost
Spatial relatedness and brood parasitism in a female-philopatric bird population
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 67 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
L. McKinnon, H. G. Gilchrist, and K. T. Scribner
Genetic evidence for kin-based female social structure in common eiders (Somateria mollissima)
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 614 - 621.
[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.