Colony kin structure and host‐parasite relatedness in the barnacle goose

Anderholm, Sofia; Waldeck, Peter; Jeugd, Henk P. van der; Marshall, Rupert C.; Larsson, Kjell; Andersson, Malte

doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2009.04397.x

Cited by 12 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following this line of reasoning, nesting parasites may have better information about other females in the surrounding nests possibly because of spending more time on the nesting site than non‐nesting females (cf. Anderholm et al. 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirical evidence from common goldeneyes suggests that hosts can indeed show differential treatment of parasites during parasitic laying events, sometimes accepting and at other times resisting them (Åhlund 2005), although the relatedness of these parasites to the host was unknown. Likewise, host–parasite relatedness tends to be higher for parasites well synchronized with their host than for late parasites in barnacle geese ( Branta leucopsis ), possibly because of differential host aggression towards familiar and unfamiliar parasites (Anderholm et al. 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential responses to related hosts by nesting and non‐nesting parasites in a brood‐parasitic duck

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Host-parasite relatedness may facilitate the evolution of conspecific brood parasitism, but empirical support for this contention remains inconclusive. One reason for this disparity may relate to the diversity of parasitic tactics, a key distinguishing feature being whether the parasite has a nest of her own. Previous work suggests that parasites without nests of their own may be of inferior phenotypic quality, but because of difficulties in identifying these parasitic individuals, little is known about their host selection criteria. We used high-resolution molecular maternity tests to assign parasitic offspring to known parasites with and without their own nests in a population of Barrow's goldeneyes (Bucephala islandica). We determined whether parasite nesting status, host-parasite relatedness and distance between host and parasite nests affected the probability of parasitizing a host and the number of eggs laid per host. We also investigated whether nesting parasites, conventionally nesting females and non-nesting parasites differed regarding their age, structural size, body condition, nesting phenology or total brood size. The probability of engaging in parasitism increased with host-parasite relatedness and spatial proximity to host nests for nesting and non-nesting females alike. However, nesting parasites increased the number of eggs donated with relatedness to the host, while non-nesting parasites did not do so. Non-nesting parasites laid fewer eggs in total, but did not differ by any of the other quality measures from conventional nesters or nesting parasites. Our study provides the first demonstration that nesting and non-nesting parasites from the same population may use different host selection criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential responses to related hosts by nesting and non‐nesting parasites in a brood‐parasitic duck

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, in a study on individually marked (ringed) Barnacle Geese (Branta leucopsis), relatedness among known mother-daughter pairs was ten times higher than among host-parasite pairs of unknown origin (Anderholm et al 2009b). In that sample, none of the 16 nests of known kin were parasitized.…”

Section: Parametermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another puzzling feature is that protein fingerprinting may also lead to underestimation of relatedness (Anderholm et al 2009b;Jaatinen 2009). Protein fingerprinting cannot reveal the genealogical relationship between individuals, although it is useful in estimating mean relatedness in samples.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin structure and choice of brood care in a Common Eider (Somateria m. mollissima) population

Hario¹,

Koljonen²,

Rintala³

2012

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the presence of kin-biased cooperative breeding in the Common Eider (Somateria m. mollissima), a colonial seaduck commonly presumed to have a high rate of natal philopatry. Based on a 23-yearlong time series of individually marked mothers and daughters, we found that on average 18% of the study population consisted of first-order relatives: mothers, daughters, and female siblings. However, there were years with no or only a few first-order kin pairs present. This was due to the overall low duckling survival in this species and the high rate of natal dispersal in this population. There was no apparent tendency for timely nesting relatives (laying within 3 days of each other) to approach each other, indicating no firm kin recognition. In a 3-year sampling of DNA from egg shell membranes, the annual rate of intraspecific brood parasitism in the population varied between 25 and 67%. However, becoming parasitized had no effect on the subsequent choice of brood tending tactics, i.e., whether to tend alone or communally. Neither was the choice of brood tending tactics affected by the number of own eggs in the clutch or by the female body condition. However, becoming a communal brood-tender was jointly contributed by the presence of alien eggs in the nest and the presence of first-order kin in the colony during early breeding. The greatest effect on females favoring communal brood care instead of rearing alone was due to the number of similar-aged broods nearby at the time of nest exodus. We found no evidence of firm kin recognition among individuals in our study population. ZusammenfassungVerwandtschaftsstruktur und Brutpflegetaktik in einer Population der Europäischen Eiderente (Somateria m. mollissima)Wir haben das Auftreten von verwandtschaftsbasiertem kooperativem Brüten bei der Europäischen Eiderente (Somateria m. mollissima) untersucht, einer koloniebrütenden Meerente, bei der im Allgemeinen eine ausgeprägte Geburtsortstreue angenommen wird. Basierend auf einer 23 Jahre währenden Zeitreihe individuell markierter Mütter und Töchter fanden wir, dass durchschnittlich 18% der untersuchten Population aus Verwandten ersten Grades bestanden: Müttern, Töchtern und Schwestern. Es gab jedoch Jahre, in denen nur wenige Verwandtschaftspaare ersten Grades anwesend waren. Dies war auf die insgesamt niedrige Ü berlebensrate der Entenküken bei dieser Art und die hohe Rate der Abwanderung vom Geburtsort in dieser Population zurückzuführen. Verwandte, die innerhalb von drei Tagen mit der Eiablage begannen, zeigten keine offensichtliche Tendenz, sich einander zu nähern, was darauf hindeutet, dass Verwandte nicht sicher erkannt werden. Die Entnahme von DNA-Proben aus der Eischalenmembran über einen Zeitraum von drei Jahren zeigte, dass die jährliche Rate von intraspezifischem Brutparasitismus in der Population zwischen 25 und 67% variierte. Ob ein Nest parasitiert wurde oder nicht, hatte jedoch keinen Einfluss darauf, ob Communicated by P

show abstract

“…2011). However, this is not always the case (Semel & Sherman 2001; Anderholm et al. 2009; and see Pöysa 2004).…”

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

Colony kin structure and host‐parasite relatedness in the barnacle goose

Cited by 12 publications

References 68 publications

Differential responses to related hosts by nesting and non‐nesting parasites in a brood‐parasitic duck

Differential responses to related hosts by nesting and non‐nesting parasites in a brood‐parasitic duck

Kin structure and choice of brood care in a Common Eider (Somateria m. mollissima) population

The relative role of relatives in conspecific brood parasitism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About