Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on May 14, 2009
Behavioral Ecology 2009 20(4):821-829; doi:10.1093/beheco/arp066
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/4/821    most recent
arp066v1
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, P. G.
Right arrow Articles by Evans, C. S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, P. G.
Right arrow Articles by Evans, C. S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing

Paul G. McDonald, David R. Wilson and Christopher S. Evans

Department of Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, Centre for the Integrative Study of Animal Behaviour, Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia

Address correspondence to P.G. McDonald. E-mail: paul{at}galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au.


   Abstract

Models of parent–offspring conflict and nestling begging honesty often assume that signaling is associated with increased predation risk. However, little evidence exists that begging actually increases predation in the context in which it evolved, especially when the potentially modulating effects of parental defense are taken into account. We measured the cost of begging in cooperatively breeding bell miners (Manorina melanophrys) by baiting 168 inactive nests with a wax egg and broadcasting sounds from nearby speakers. Nests were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: silence, unmanipulated begging calls, or shaped white noise pulses that matched the amplitude envelope of each corresponding begging call. Moreover, half of the nests were placed outside and half inside bell miner colonies, where miners vigorously mob potential nest predators. Predation was not influenced by vegetation cover, distance of the nest from the speaker, or placement inside the colony. Sounds were costly, however, as nests broadcasting begging signals or white noise were predated more often and more quickly than silent controls. Contrary to theoretical predictions regarding "stealthy" design, we found that predators were just as likely to locate nests with broadband white noise playback as nests broadcasting begging signals. Further, there was an interaction between playback amplitude and predator type (avian vs. rodent): Louder playback led to decreased nest survival for those taken by avian predators. As increased begging drives provisioning rates in many species, including bell miners, this reveals an inescapable trade-off between nestling begging intensity, parental provisioning effort, and predation risk.

Key words: costs of signals, parent–offspring conflict, predator–prey interactions, signal design.

Received 9 November 2008; revised 27 February 2009; accepted 1 April 2009.


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




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.