Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Carer provisioning rules in an obligate cooperative breeder: prey type, size and delivery rate

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Providing food to developing offspring is beneficial for offspring but costly for carers. Understanding patterns of provisioning thus yields important insights into how selection shapes (allo-) parental care strategies. Broadly, offspring development will be influenced by three components of provisioning (prey type, size and delivery rate). However, all three variables are rarely considered simultaneously, leading to suggestions that the results of many studies are misleading. Additionally, few studies have examined the provisioning strategies of breeders and non-breeding helpers in obligate cooperative breeders, wherein reproduction without help is typically unsuccessful. We investigated these components of provisioning in obligately cooperative chestnut-crowned babblers (Pomatostomus ruficeps). Prey type was associated with size, and delivery rate was the best predictor of the overall amount of food provided by carers. As broods aged, breeders and helpers similarly modified the relative proportion of different prey provided and increased both prey size and delivery rate. Breeding females contributed less prey than male breeders and adult helpers, and were the only carers to load-lighten by reducing their provisioning rates in the presence of additional carers. While our results suggest that breeders and helpers follow broadly comparable provisioning rules, they are also consistent with the idea that, in obligately cooperative species, breeding females benefit more from conserving resources for future reproduction than do helpers which have a low probability of breeding independently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold KE, Ramsay SL, Donaldson C, Adam A (2007) Parental prey selection affects risk-taking behaviour and spatial learning in avian offspring. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2563–2569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bañbura J, Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Perret P, Cartan-Son M (1999) Food handling time of blue tit chicks: constraints and adaptation to different prey types. J Avian Biol 30:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM (2011) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4

  • Boland CRJ, Heinsohn R, Cockburn A (1997) Experimental manipulation of brood reduction and parental care in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs. J Anim Ecol 66:683–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL (1987) Helping and communal breeding in birds. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning LE, Patrick SC, Rollins LA, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012) Kin selection, not group augmentation, predicts helping in an obligate cooperatively breeding bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:3861–3869

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Canestrari D, Chiarati E, Marcos JM, Ekman J, Baglione V (2008) Helpers but not breeders adjust provisioning effort to year-round territory resource availability in carrion crows. Anim Behav 76:943–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Spong G, Russell AF, Jordan NR, Bennett NC, Sharpe LL, Manser MB (2006) Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature 444:1065–1068

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Russell AF, Sharpe LL (2004) Behavioural tactics of breeders in cooperative meerkats. Anim Behav 68:1029–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Russell AF, Sharpe LL, Young AJ, Balmforth Z, McIlrath GM (2002) Evolution and development of sex differences in cooperative behavior in meerkats. Science 297:253–297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwallis CK, West SA, Griffin AS (2009) Routes to indirect fitness in cooperatively breeding vertebrates: kin discrimination and limited dispersal. J Evol Biol 22:2445–2457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cowie RJ, Hinsley SA (1988) Feeding ecology of great tits (Parus major) and blue tits (Parus caeruleus), breeding in suburban gardens. J Avian Biol 57:611–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Hatchwell BJ (2004) Fitness consequences of helping. In: Koenig WD, Dickinson JL (eds) Ecology and evolution of cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen ST, Wrege PH (1991) Breeding biology of white-fronted bee-eaters at Nakuru: the influence of helpers on breeder fitness. J Anim Ecol 60:309–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat Med 27:2865–2873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist J, Russell AF (2007) Who cares? Individual contributions to pup care by breeders vs non-breeders in the cooperatively breeding banded mongoose (Mungos mungo). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1053–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 7:1071–1075

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 32:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour I & II. J Theor Biol 7:1–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchwell BJ (1999) Investment strategies of breeders in avian cooperative breeding systems. Am Nat 154:205–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchwell BJ (2009) The evolution of cooperative breeding in birds: kinship, dispersal and life history. Philos T Roy Soc B 364:3217–3227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchwell BJ, Russell AF, MacColl ADC, Ross DJ, Fowlie MK, McGowan A (2004) Helpers increase long-term but not short-term productivity in cooperatively breeding long-tailed tits. Behav Ecol 15:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinsohn R (1991) Slow learning of foraging skills and extended parental care in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs. Am Nat 137:864–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinsohn R (2004) Parental care, load-lightening, and costs. In: Koenig WD, Dickinson JL (eds) Ecology and evolution of cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 67–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins PJ, Peter JM (2002) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 6: Pardalotes to Shrike-thrushes. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Holleley CE, Russell AF, Griffith SC (2009) Isolation and characterization of polymorphic tetranucleotide microsatellite loci in the chestnut-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus ruficeps). Mol Ecol Res 9:993–995

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Langen TA (1996) Skill acquisition and the timing of natal dispersal in the white-throated magpie-jay, Calocitta formosa. Anim Behav 51:575–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legge S (2000) Helper contributions in the cooperatively breeding laughing kookaburra: feeding young is no laughing matter. Anim Behav 59:1009–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindström J (1999) Early development and fitness in birds and mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 14:343–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacColl ADC, Hatchwell BJ (2003) Sharing of caring: nestling provisioning behaviour of long-tailed tit, Aegithalos caudatus, parents and helpers. Anim Behav 66:955–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1964) Group selection and kin selection. Nature 201:1145–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe NB, Monaghan P (2001) Compensation for a bad start: grow now, pay later? Trends Ecol Evol 16:254–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan P, Nager RG (1997) Why don’t birds lay more eggs? Trends Ecol Evol 12:270–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nam K-B, Meade J, Hatchwell BJ (2011) Do parents and helpers adjust their provisioning effort in relation to nestling sex in a cooperatively breeding bird? Anim Behav 82:303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portelli DJ, Barclay H, Russell DJF, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2009) Social organisation and foraging ecology of the cooperatively breeding chestnut-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus ruficeps). Emu 109:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabenold KN (1985) Cooperation in breeding by nonreproductive wrens: kinship, reciprocity, and demography. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford AN (2008) Age-related changes in nestling diet of the cooperatively breeding green woodhoopoe. Ethology 114:907–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay SL, Houston DC (2003) Amino acid composition of some woodland arthropods and its implications for breeding tits and other passerines. Ibis 145:227–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollins LA, Browning LE, Hollely CE, Savage JL, Russell AF, Griffith SC (2012) Building genetic networks using relatedness information: a novel approach for the estimation of dispersal and characterization of group structure in social animals. Mol Ecol 21:1727–1740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royama T (1970) Factors governing the hunting behaviour and selection of food by the great tit (Parus major L.). J Anim Ecol 39:619–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell AF, Langmore NE, Gardner JL, Kilner RM (2008) Maternal investment tactics in superb fairy-wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:29–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russell AF, Portelli DJ, Russell DJF, Barclay H (2010) Breeding ecology of the chestnut-crowned babbler: a cooperative breeder in the desert. Emu 110:324–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon BC (2000) Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 15:397–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon NG, French JA (1997) Cooperative breeding in mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorato E, Gullett PR, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012) Effects of predation risk on foraging behaviour and group size: adaptations in a social cooperative species. Anim Behav 84(4):823–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey PB, Koenig WD (1990) Cooperative breeding in birds: long-term studies of ecology and behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • te Marvelde L, McDonald PG, Kazem AJN, Wright J (2009) Do helpers really help? Provisioning biomass and prey type effects on nestling growth in the cooperative bell miner. Anim Behav 77:727–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woxvold IA, Mulder RA, Magrath MJL (2006) Contributions to care vary with age, sex, breeding status and group size in the cooperatively breeding apostlebird. Anim Behav 72:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright J (1998) Helpers-at-the-nest have the same provisioning rule as parents: experimental evidence from play-backs of chick begging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:423–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright J, McDonald PG, te Marvelde L, Kazem AJN, Bishop CM (2010) Helping effort increases with relatedness in bell miners, but “unrelated” helpers of both sexes still provide substantial care. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young CM, Browning LE, Savage JL, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012) No evidence for deception over allocation to brood care in a cooperative bird. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/ars137

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. David Croft, Garry and Vicky Dowling and Zane Turner for logistical support at Fowlers Gap; UNSW for permission to work there; Elena Berg, Sam Patrick, Bec Rose and Beth Woodward for fieldwork; Clare Holleley and Lee Ann Rollins for molecular work; Stanislaw Zabramski and Michael Magrath for designing and making the PIT tag system; Tim Clutton-Brock, Nick Davies and Ben Hatchwell for helpful discussion; James Gilbert, Stuart Sharp, Sjouke Kingma and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript; and James Gilbert for help with MCMCglmm. This work was funded by grants from the Natural Environment Research Council [studentship to University of Cambridge (LEB)] and New Investigator’s (AFR), Marmaduke Shield Fund (LEB), Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (AFR) and the Royal Society University Research Fellowship Scheme (AFR).

Ethical standards

Fieldwork was carried out under the approval of UNSW Animal Care and Ethics Committee (license no. 06/40A) and the authority of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fowlers Gap Arid Zone Research Station, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    L. E. Browning

  2. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK

    L. E. Browning, J. L. Savage & H. Barclay

  3. Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    C. M. Young & S. C. Griffith

  4. Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

    D. J. F. Russell

  5. Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK

    D. J. F. Russell

  6. Centre for Ecology & Conservation, College of Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK

    A. F. Russell

  7. Station d’Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRS, USR 2936, 09200, Moulis, France

    A. F. Russell

Authors
  1. L. E. Browning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. M. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. L. Savage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. J. F. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Barclay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. C. Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. F. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. E. Browning.

Additional information

Communicated by P. A. Bednekoff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Browning, L.E., Young, C.M., Savage, J.L. et al. Carer provisioning rules in an obligate cooperative breeder: prey type, size and delivery rate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66, 1639–1649 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1419-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1419-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation