Alien eggs in duck nests: brood parasitism or a help from Grandma?

Tiedemann, Ralph; Paulus, Kirsten B.; Havenstein, Katja; Thorstensen, Sverrir; Petersen, Aevar; Lyngs, Peter; Milinkovitch, Michel C.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05158.x

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, our objectives were to (a) genotype nest feathers and hatch membranes to identify instances of conspecific brood parasitism, (b) quantify the level of relatedness between host and parasitizers to estimate the inclusive fitness of parasitic eggs to the host female, and (c) understand the underlying mechanism (kin grouping or nest site fidelity) responsible for high levels of relatedness observed between host and parasitizer. Our overall estimate of brood parasitism (22.7% of eggs and 50.7% of nests) is comparable to other estimates for this species using microsatellite genotyping: higher than the rate of 17% of eggs estimated by Tiedemann et al () and lower than the rate of 34.2% of eggs estimated by Hario et al () (Table ). We also found our estimate of parasitism to be higher than other methods used such as protein banding and morphometrics, which is due to microsatellites having a higher probability of detecting cases of parasitism (Table ; Figure ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Common eiders are uniparental caregivers where only the female attends the nest, which limits the number of recess events taken throughout incubation and places all responsibilities of nest and brood defense on the incubating female. The rate of parasitism in common eiders ranges from 2% to 55% of all nests (Hario, Kolijonen, & Rintala, ; Lusignan, Mehl, Jones, & Gloutney, ; Tiedemann et al, ; Waldeck & Andersson, ; Waldeck, Hagen, Hanssen, & Andersson, ; Waldeck, Kilpi, Öst, & Andersson, ). Older females more willingly accept parasitic eggs when compared to younger hosts (Tiedemann et al, ), and there are usually high levels of relatedness between the host and parasitizer (Tiedemann et al, ; Waldeck, Andersson, Kilpi, & Ost, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rate of parasitism in common eiders ranges from 2% to 55% of all nests (Hario, Kolijonen, & Rintala, ; Lusignan, Mehl, Jones, & Gloutney, ; Tiedemann et al, ; Waldeck & Andersson, ; Waldeck, Hagen, Hanssen, & Andersson, ; Waldeck, Kilpi, Öst, & Andersson, ). Older females more willingly accept parasitic eggs when compared to younger hosts (Tiedemann et al, ), and there are usually high levels of relatedness between the host and parasitizer (Tiedemann et al, ; Waldeck, Andersson, Kilpi, & Ost, ). Female common eiders exhibit strong philopatry with estimates of 98% of females returning to their natal grounds (Coulson, ; Swennen, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Kin grouping is insufficient to explain the inclusive fitness gains of conspecific brood parasitism in the common eider

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conspecific brood parasitism allows females to exploit other females' nests and enhance their reproductive output. Here, we test a recent theoretical model of how host females gain inclusive fitness from brood parasitism. High levels of relatedness between host and parasitizer can be maintained either by: (a) kin recognizing and parasitizing each other as a form of cooperative breeding or (b) natal philopatry and nest site fidelity facilitating the formation of kin groups, thereby increasing the probability of parasitism between relatives nesting in close proximity. To address these two hypotheses we genotyped feathers and hatch membranes of common eiders (Somateria mollissima) from western Hudson Bay, Canada, using a noninvasive sampling methodology. We found that most instances of brood parasitism do result in inclusive fitness gains. Furthermore, females with failed nests moved an average of 492 m from their previous year's nest site, while successful females only moved an average of 13 m. Therefore, we observed host–parasite relatedness can occur at levels higher than would be expected by chance even in the absence of kin grouping, suggesting that closely related females nesting near one another is not essential to maintain high host–parasitizer relatedness. In addition, kin grouping is only a transient phenomenon that cannot occur every year due to the propensity for females of failed nests to nest farther away from their nest site in subsequent years than females with successful nests, which provides support for kin recognition as a more likely mechanism to maintain high host–parasitizer relatedness over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kin grouping is insufficient to explain the inclusive fitness gains of conspecific brood parasitism in the common eider

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2009)Barrow’s goldeneye ( Bucephala islandica )Yes Number of parasitic eggs increased with relatednessWeak Slight decline in relatedness with distanceNo Host–parasite relatedness similar to neighbours0.08−0.015 0.11 (neighbours)No19 microsatellites Jaatinen et al. 2009 Common eider ( M. somateria )Yes Interaction with parasite statusNoYes0.39 (mean) 0.48, 0.28 (different sites)0.0No7 microsatellites Tiedemann et al. (2011) CBP, conspecific brood parasitism. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relative role of relatives in conspecific brood parasitism

Eadie

Lyon

2011

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conspecific brood parasites lay their eggs in the nests of other females in the same population, leading to a fascinating array of possible ‘games’ among parasites and their hosts (Davies 2000; Lyon & Eadie 2008). Almost 30 years ago, Andersson & Eriksson (1982) first suggested that perhaps this form of parasitism was not what it seemed—indeed, perhaps it was not parasitism at all!Andersson & Eriksson (1982) observed that conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) was disproportionally common in waterfowl (Anatidae), a group of birds for which natal philopatry is female‐biased rather than the more usual avian pattern of male‐biased natal philopatry. Accordingly, Andersson (1984) reasoned (and demonstrated in an elegantly simple model) that relatedness among females might facilitate the evolution of CBP—prodding us to reconsider it as a kin‐selected and possibly cooperative breeding system rather than a parasitic interaction. The idea was much cited but rarely tested empirically until recently—a number of new studies, empowered with a battery of molecular techniques, have now put Andersson’s hypothesis to the test (Table 1). The results are tantalizing, but also somewhat conflicting. Several studies, focusing on waterfowl, have found clear evidence that hosts and parasites are often related (Andersson & Åhlund 2000; Roy Nielsen et al. 2006; Andersson & Waldeck 2007; Waldeck et al. 2008; Jaatinen et al. 2009; Tiedemann et al. 2011). However, this is not always the case (Semel & Sherman 2001; Anderholm et al. 2009; and see Pöysa 2004). In a new study reported in this issue of Molecular Ecology, Jaatinen et al. (2011a) provide yet another twist to this story that might explain not only why such variable results have been obtained, but also suggests that the games between parasites and their hosts—and the role of kinship in these games—may be even more complex than Andersson (1984) imagined. Indeed, the role of kinship in CBP may be very much one of relative degree! A summary of recent studies that have tested for evidence of relatedness between hosts and parasites in avian conspecific brood parasites Species Evidence of host–parasite relatedness? Evidence of local kin structure? Relatedness > expected spatially r Host–Parasite r Population Costs or benefits measured? Method Source Common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus)Mixed  Some parasitism between relativesYes  Limited dispersal of both sexesNo  Not greater than expected——No (but discussed)DNA minisatellite fingerprints McRae & Burke (1996)Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)Yes  Number of parasitic eggs also increased with relatednessNot tested; high female philopatryYes0.132—NoProtein fingerprints 50 bands Andersson & Åhlund (2000)Wood duck (Aix sponsa)No (parasites avoid relatives)Not tested; high female philopatryNo  Significantly less likely to parasitize local kin——NoBehavioural observation Semel & Sherman (2001)Common goldeneye (B. clangula)No  Relatedness unlikely to explain CBPNot testedNot measured——YesField measures Pöysa (2004)Wood duck (A. sponsa)Yes (for pr...

show abstract

“…For example, CBP is particularly common in waterfowl, a group where high rates of female natal philopatry could lead to kin-structured populations and relatedness between host and parasites (Andersson and Eriksson 1982;Eadie et al 1988). Evidence is now mounting that parasites and hosts are often genetically related and that kin recognition may be involved in some aspects of brood parasitism (McRae and Burke 1996; Andersson and Ahlund 2000;Jaatinen 2009Jaatinen , 2011aTiedemann et al 2011;Poysa et al 2014;Andersson et al 2015;summarized in Eadie and Lyon 2011). When a female parasitizes relatives, any costs of brood parasitism to hosts (e.g., fewer host offspring) could be offset by the inclusive fitness benefits the host gains through the parasite's reproduction (Andersson 2001;LopezSupulcre and Kokko 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism versus Cooperative Breeding as Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Zink

Lyon²

2016

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative breeding and conspecific brood parasitism can both be favored by ecological saturation of breeding territories or nest sites. Here, we develop a model that links these alternative reproductive tactics by focusing on nonnesting females (S) that either breed cooperatively with a nesting female (N) or parasitize a third, outside host female (H). We find that cooperative breeding is more likely to evolve with increasing relatedness of cooperating females (S or N) to the outside host female (H) and with increasing costs to the hosts for receiving parasitic eggs. Conversely, cooperation is less likely with increasing kinship between the two potentially cooperative nesters (S and N ). This is because even the nesting female gains higher inclusive fitness as long as the number of parasitic eggs (of her otherwise potentially cooperating partner) is sufficiently high. We find the relationship between kinship and reproductive skew within cooperative nests can be either positive or negative depending on the fecundity of parasites versus nesting females. We also find that either of the cooperatively nesting females is more likely to tolerate a smaller fraction of group reproduction as kinship with the host female increases and as the host reproduces more (relative to the parasite) in outside nests. Finally, our model predicts that, as the outside option of conspecific brood parasitism becomes more profitable, helping behavior (zero reproduction by one female) is less likely to evolve in cooperatively breeding groups.

show abstract

Alien eggs in duck nests: brood parasitism or a help from Grandma?

Cited by 28 publications

References 44 publications

Kin grouping is insufficient to explain the inclusive fitness gains of conspecific brood parasitism in the common eider

Kin grouping is insufficient to explain the inclusive fitness gains of conspecific brood parasitism in the common eider

The relative role of relatives in conspecific brood parasitism

Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism versus Cooperative Breeding as Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About