Skip Navigation



Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on October 26, 2005
Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/arj006
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/1/126    most recent
arj006v1
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 Cunningham, E. J.A.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cunningham, E. J.A.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. 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
Received September 16, 2004
Revised February 22, 2005
Accepted October 2, 2005

Article

Parasitism of maternal investment selects for increased clutch size and brood reduction in a host

Emma J.A. Cunningham 1* and Sue Lewis 2

1 Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biology, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK
2 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Banchory, Hill of Brathens, Banchory, Aberdeenshire AB31 4BW, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Emma J.A. Cunningham, E-mail: e.cunningham{at}ed.ac.uk


  Abstract

The allocation of resources to young that will ultimately be left to die appears counterintuitive. Yet obligate brood reduction has evolved in a number of species, despite the waste of reproductive investment this may incur. Here we test whether brood parasitism could be one factor leading to the evolution of obligate brood reduction because surplus eggs in the nest during incubation offer some protection from the costs of parasitism. Surplus eggs could benefit females in two ways. First, additional eggs may protect against the direct costs of parasitism by facilitating recognition and removal of parasitic eggs with greater accuracy. Second, additional eggs may protect against the indirect costs of parasitism as parasites often damage or remove host eggs when entering the host nest; surplus eggs may be an essential insurance strategy against this damage. We test these possibilities in the Montezuma Oropendola (Psarocolius Montezuma), a species experiencing high levels of parasitism by Giant Cowbirds (Scaphidura oryzivora) throughout their range. Overall rejection rates of cowbird eggs were high (72%), and experimental addition of parasitic eggs to empty, one-, and two-egg nests demonstrated that recognition success was unaffected by the presence of additional host eggs for comparison. However, the value of surplus eggs when one egg was removed or damaged by a parasite was high; 31.6% of successful two-egg clutches lost a single egg during incubation and would have failed to produce a chick without a second egg. This was directly attributable to parasitism in at least 33% of all cases. Therefore, despite highly developed host defenses against direct costs of parasitism (recognition and removal of parasitic eggs), the associated indirect costs (egg damage and removal) could play an important role in selection for a clutch size that results in more chicks than can be raised.

Keywords: allocation; maternal investment; obligate brood reduction; parasitism.
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
 Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
O. Kruger
Cuckoos, cowbirds and hosts: adaptations, trade-offs and constraints
Phil Trans R Soc B, October 29, 2007; 362(1486): 1873 - 1886.
[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.