2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.01.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental manipulation of incubation period reveals no apparent costs of incubation in house wrens

Abstract: Fitness costs of incubation ensue whenever the trade-off between incubation and foraging leads to suboptimal incubation or decreased parental body condition. We examined the costs of incubation in a wild population of house wrens, Troglodytes aedon, by experimentally extending or decreasing the incubation period by cross-fostering eggs between nests at different stages of incubation (eggs from control nests were cross-fostered at the same stage of incubation). We determined whether parents or offspring bear th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Support for the incubation inefficiency explanation is equivocal. An experimental study of house wrens Troglodytes aedon that used cross-fostering of eggs to extend or reduce the length of time females had to incubate a clutch had no effect on hatching success (Sakaluk et al, 2018), suggesting that the inefficient incubation hypothesis is unlikely. However, females in lower body condition incubate for longer and have reduced hatching success due to lower incubation temperatures (Hepp et al, 2006) and increased incubation recesses (Bueno-Enciso et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Support for the incubation inefficiency explanation is equivocal. An experimental study of house wrens Troglodytes aedon that used cross-fostering of eggs to extend or reduce the length of time females had to incubate a clutch had no effect on hatching success (Sakaluk et al, 2018), suggesting that the inefficient incubation hypothesis is unlikely. However, females in lower body condition incubate for longer and have reduced hatching success due to lower incubation temperatures (Hepp et al, 2006) and increased incubation recesses (Bueno-Enciso et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We predicted that if there were a relationship between CORT and reproductive investment and success, it would most likely emerge post-hatch, given the higher maternal energy expenditure required during chick rearing than during incubation ( Nilsson and Råberg, 2001 ; Humphreys et al, 2006 ; Sakaluk et al, 2018 ; but see Williams, 2018 ). However, female CORT levels during chick rearing were unrelated to any measure of reproductive investment (nest box visits and nestling growth rate) nor any measure of reproductive success (nestling mass at day 14 and fledging success).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a lack of relationship could be due to different functions of CORT; when resources are plentiful, elevated CORT could stimulate energy mobilization and parental provisioning; however, CORT could also be elevated in parents experiencing stressors ( Vitousek et al, 2014 ). Even within a breeding season, different stages can have differing parental energetic requirements presumably requiring different levels of GC-mediated energy mobilization ( Humphreys et al, 2006 ; Nager, 2006 ; Tulp et al, 2009 ; Sakaluk et al, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the time of banding, we weighed nestlings and measured their tarsus length to assess size-adjusted body mass (García-Berthou 2001). When measured prior to fledging, this size-adjusted mass positively predicts offspring recruitment and their reproductive success in the population as adults (Bowers et al 2014a, 2015c), and, when measured in adulthood during breeding, maternal lifetime allelic fitness (Sakaluk et al 2018). We checked nests daily beginning on day 13 to check for fledging.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%