The importance of genetic evidence for identifying intra-specific brood parasitism

Abstract

Intra‐specific brood parasitism is widespread among birds. When genetic evidence is not available, criteria like super‐normal clutch size, high within‐clutch variance in egg morphology, and shorter than normal laying intervals have been used to identify parasitized broods. Here we report genetically determined parentage of a clutch of super‐normal size in a species with fixed clutch size, the northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus. Results from multi‐locus DNA fingerprinting revealed no loss of parentage in this brood. Furthermore, no loss of parentage was found in another clutch with a high variance in egg size and colouration. These findings add to previous evidence that reliable classification of brood parasitism requires molecular analysis.

Within-population variation in mating system and parental care patterns in the Sanderling (Calidris alba) in northeast Greenland

“…Special care is also necessary because the majority of descriptions of breeding systems of shorebird species used in the phylogenetic comparative studies were based on interpretations of observed behavior, without genetic support (e.g., MacLean 1969, Nettleship 1973, Gratto-Trevor 1991; but see, e.g., Wallander et al 2001, Blomqvist et al 2002b. Although the breeding biology of some shorebirds has certainly been comprehensively studied, for example, in the Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus; Küpper et al 2004), Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus; Schamel et al 2004), and Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus; Grønstøl et al 2006), more data are needed on genetic mating systems and intraspecific variation in breeding decisions in most shorebirds .…”

Automatic identification of bird females using egg phenotype

“…This approach has therefore been applied (although with caveats) for the identification of parasitic eggs in some conspecific brood parasite species (Gibbons, 1986; Møller, 1987; Jackson, 1992; Petersen, 1992; Bruce E. Lyon, 1993; McRae & Burke, 1996; B. E Lyon, 2003). However, some studies that estimated accuracy of parasitic egg identification showed ambiguous results for some species (Ådahl, Lindström, Ruxton, Arnold, & Begg, 2004; Pöysä, Lindblom, Rutila, & Sorjonen, 2009; Eadie, Smith, Zadworny, Kühnlein, & Cheng, 2010; Lemons, Sedinger, & Randle, 2011; Petrželková, Pöysä, Klvaňa, Albrecht, & Hořák, 2017) and for others this method did not work at all (Brown & Sherman, 1989; Cariello, Lima, Schwabl, & Macedo, 2004; Grønstøl, Blomqvist, & Wagner, 2006; Griffith, Barr, Sheldon, Rowe, & Burke, 2009; Roy, Parker, & Gates, 2009). One of the reasons why many studies found low accuracy of identification might be that closely related females lay indistinctive eggs.…”