2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10336-012-0875-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Patterns of acceptance of artificial eggs and chicks by Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In some avian species, parents are not able to identify their own offspring, and can only recognize the location of the nest, thus delivering food to any young bird that may be present (Varpe et al 2004, Riou et al 2012. In some cases, offspring may have certain physical characteristics that serve as cues for determining the intensity of parental effort (Wagner et al 2013). Though we do not have sufficient evidence to confirm that adult Red-footed Boobies are unable to distinguish their own offspring from neighboring offspring, the documentation of alloparental feeding behavior by Lecomte et al (2006) and Biaulieu et al (2009), also supports this hypothesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some avian species, parents are not able to identify their own offspring, and can only recognize the location of the nest, thus delivering food to any young bird that may be present (Varpe et al 2004, Riou et al 2012. In some cases, offspring may have certain physical characteristics that serve as cues for determining the intensity of parental effort (Wagner et al 2013). Though we do not have sufficient evidence to confirm that adult Red-footed Boobies are unable to distinguish their own offspring from neighboring offspring, the documentation of alloparental feeding behavior by Lecomte et al (2006) and Biaulieu et al (2009), also supports this hypothesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the nest had been categorized as ‘manipulated' when E1 was laid, we measured and marked the egg and replaced it with a plaster replica (the real E1 was safely placed in a plastic container inside the colony, under a bush sheltered from the sunlight but exposed to ambient temperature (Barrionuevo and Frere 2017)). The replica eggs were made of gypsum and were the same size and shape as penguin eggs, and were accepted by all females (Wagner et al 2013, Barrionuevo 2015). For these nests, when E2 was laid, we measured the egg and added a second categorization to the nest: synchronous or asynchronous, according to the way it was manipulated, as follows: a) If the nest was classified as synchronous, as soon as E2 was laid, we took it and placed it in another manipulated nest in which an E2 was laid on the same day.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Artificial eggs were made of gypsum and had the same size and shape as penguin eggs. All females accepted these eggs as their own and continued the incubation without any problems (Wagner et al ). This experiment allowed us to maintain the laying order of the eggs and avoid variations related to the genetic background of the nestlings when performing cross‐fostering experiments.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%