Turn taking is not restricted by task specialisation but does not facilitate equality in offspring provisioning
Abstract Sexual conflict arises when two individuals invest in their common offspring because both individuals benefit when their partner invests more. Conditional cooperation is a theoretical concept that could resolve this conflict. Here, parents are thought to motivate each other to contribute to...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/47511f65237f4df5832d65294e25fb23 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Sexual conflict arises when two individuals invest in their common offspring because both individuals benefit when their partner invests more. Conditional cooperation is a theoretical concept that could resolve this conflict. Here, parents are thought to motivate each other to contribute to provisioning visits by following the rules of turn taking, which results in equal and efficient investment. However, parents have other tasks besides provisioning, which might hinder taking turns. To investigate restrictions by other care tasks and whether turn taking can be used to match investment, we manipulated brooding duration in female blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) during the early nestling phase by changing nest box temperature. As expected, females subjected to cold conditions brooded longer than females under warm conditions. Yet, contrary to our prediction, females had similar visit rates in both treatments, which suggests that females in the cold treatment invested more overall. In addition, the females’ turn taking level was higher in the more demanding cold condition (and the calculated randomised turn taking levels of females did not differ), hence females don’t seem to be restricted in their turn taking strategy by other care tasks. However, males did not seem to match the females’ turn taking levels because they did not adjust their visit rates. Thus, level of turn taking was not restricted by an other sex-specific task in females and did not facilitate a greater investment by their male partners. |
|---|