Population Ecology

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 231–241

Parental investment and family dynamics: interactions between theory and empirical tests

  • Nick J. Royle
  • Ian R. Hartley
  • Geoff A. Parker
Review Special feature: Conflict among related individuals

Abstract

The pattern of parental investment (PI) seen in nature is a product of the simultaneous resolution of conflicts of interest between the members of a family. How these conflicts are resolved depends upon the mating system, the genetic mechanism, on whether extra PI affects current or future offspring, and the behavioural mechanisms underlying supply and demand of PI. Until recently very little empirical work has been done to underpin these key determinants of conflict resolution. This review examines recent empirical progress in understanding both (1) how conflict is resolved and (2) its evolutionary consequences. How offspring demand interacts with parental supply of resources determines how conflict is resolved. Two extremes are: passive parental choice of competing offspring, relating to offspring control of resource allocation, and active parental choice relating to parental control. Although most previous empirical work has tended to conclude or assume that parents primarily control resource allocation decisions, recent studies explicitly examining predictions from theoretical analyses have shown that offspring control of resource allocation is more important than previously realised. The amount of PI supplied at resolution depends not on who controls food allocation, however, but on the nature of the supply and demand mechanisms. These have yet to be established experimentally, but a recent regression model illustrates how this could be achieved in the field. Determination of the effect of supply on demand (ESD) and the effect of demand on supply (EDS) mechanisms is critical to parent–offspring conflict theory, which has not been adequately tested empirically. There is an underlying, and until recently untested, assumption of models of intrafamilial conflict that there is genetic variation for both offspring demand and parental supply behaviours, so that the behaviours can coevolve. Recent studies on great tits, burrower bugs and mice all found evidence for genetic variation in supply and demand behaviours, but the predicted negative correlation between genes expressed in mothers and their offspring (i.e. parent–offspring coevolution), was found only for burrower bugs. The lack of a negative relationship for great tits and mice may have been a consequence of antagonistic coevolution between the sexes (sexual conflict). These studies illustrate the importance of the underlying genetics and mating system in determining conflict resolution, and point to the need for new models (especially of interbrood competition) taking differences in the genetics and the co-evolution of the ESD and EDS mechanisms into account. We also discuss the importance of the comparative approach in determining evolutionary consequences of conflicts, and use the recent work on growth costs of begging to illustrate the difficulties of measuring costs of conflict in an evolutionary currency. The recent growth in empirical work on conflicts in families illustrates an increasing, and increasingly productive, integration between theoreticians and empiricists.

Keywords

Scramble Signalling Parent–offspring conflict Sexual conflict Sibling conflict 

References

  1. Agrawal AF, Brodie ED, Brown J (2002) Parent–offspring coadaptation and the dual genetic control of maternal care. Science 292:1710–1712Google Scholar
  2. Bachmann GC, Chappell MA (1998) The energetic cost of begging behaviour in nestling house wrens. Anim Behav 55:1607–1618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bañuelos MJ, Obeso JR (2003) Maternal provisioning, sibling rivalry and seed mass variability in the dioecious shrub Rhamnus alpinus. Evol Ecol 17:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briskie JV, Naugler CT, Leech SM (1994) Begging intensity of nestling birds varies with sibling relatedness. Proc R Soc London B 258:73–78Google Scholar
  5. Bustamente J, Castro JJ, Moreno J (1992) The function of feeding chases in the chinstrap penguin Pygoscelis antarctica. Anim Behav 44:753–759Google Scholar
  6. Cash K and Evans RM (1986) The occurrence, context and functional significance of aggressive behaviours in young American white pelicans. Behaviour 102:119–128Google Scholar
  7. Chappell MA, Bachmann GC (2002) Energetic costs of begging behaviour. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 143–162Google Scholar
  8. Charalambous M, Ward A, Hurst LD (2003) Evidence for a priming effect on maternal resource allocation: implications for interbrood competition. Proc R Soc London B 270:S100–S103Google Scholar
  9. Charnov EL (1993) Life history invariants: some explorations of symmetry in evolutionary ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Chase ID (1980) Cooperative and non-cooperative behaviour in animals. Am Nat 115:827–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke GM (1998) Developmental stability and fitness: the evidence is not quite so clear. Am Nat 152:762–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delesalle VRA, Mazer SJ (2002) The neighborhood matters: effects of neighbor number and sibling (or kin) competition on floral traits in Spergularia marina (Caryophyllaceae). Evolution 56:2406–2413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert AN (1986) Mammary number and litter size in rodentia: the one half rule. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:4828–4830Google Scholar
  14. Godfray HCJ (1991) The signalling of need by offspring to their parents. Nature 353:328–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godfray HCJ (1995) Evolutionary theory of parent–offspring conflict. Nature 376:1133–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godfray HCJ, Johnstone RA (2000) Begging and bleating: the evolution of parent–offspring signalling. Phil Trans R Soc London B 355:1581–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gustafsson L, Sutherland WJ (1988) The costs of reproduction in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Nature 335:813–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagar R, Johnstone RA (2003) The genetic basis of family conflict resolution in mice. Nature 421:533–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Haig D (1992) Genomic imprinting and the theory of parent–offspring conflict. Sem Dev Biol 3:153–160Google Scholar
  20. Haig D (2003) Family matters. Nature 421:491–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haskell DG (2002) Begging behaviour and nest predation. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 163–172Google Scholar
  22. Hofstetter SH, Ritchison G (1998) The begging behaviour of nestling eastern screech-owls. Wilson Bull 110:86–92Google Scholar
  23. Houston AI, Davies NB (1985) The evolution of co-operation and life history in the dunnock Prunella modularis. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology: the ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 471–487Google Scholar
  24. Hussell DJT (1988) Supply and demand in tree swallow broods: a model of parent–offspring food provisioning interactions in birds. Am Nat 131:175–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kacelnik A, Cotton PA, Stirling L, Wright J (1995) Food allocation among nestling starlings: sibling competition and the scope of parental choice. Proc R Soc London B 259:259–263Google Scholar
  26. Kedar H, Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Yedvab S, Winkler DW, Lotem A (2000) Experimental evidence for offspring learning in parent–offspring communication. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1723–1727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilner RM (2001) A growth cost of begging in captive canary chicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:11394–11398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kölliker M (2003) Estimating mechanisms and equilibria for offspring begging and parental provisioning. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:S110–S113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kölliker M, Brinkhof MWG, Heeb P, Fitze PS, Richner H (2000) The quantitative genetic basis of offspring solicitation and parental response in a passerine bird with biparental care. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2127–2132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Leech SM, Leonard ML (1996) Is there an energetic cost to begging in nestling tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor? Proc R Soc Lond B 263:215–222Google Scholar
  31. Leonard ML, Horn AG (1998) Need and nestmates affect begging in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:431–436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leonard ML, Horn AG, Porter J (2003) Does begging affect growth in nestling tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lessells CM (2002) Parental favouritism: why should parents specialize in caring for different offspring? Phil Trans R Soc London B 357:381–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lessells CM, Parker GA (1999) Parent–offspring conflict: the full-sib-half-sib fallacy. Proc R Soc London B 266:1637–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lloyd JD, Martin TE (2003) Sibling competition and the evolution of prenatal development rates. Proc R Soc London B 270:735–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macnair MR, Parker GA (1979) Models of parent–offspring conflict. III. Intra-brood conflict. Anim Behav 27:1202–1209Google Scholar
  37. Martin TE (2002) A new view of avian life-history evolution tested on an incubation paradox. Proc R Soc London B 269:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maynard-Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. McCarty JP (1996) The energetic cost of begging in nestling passerines. Auk 113:178–188Google Scholar
  40. McNamara JM, Houston AI, Barta Z, Osorno JL (2003) Should young ever be better off with one parent than with two? Behav Ecol 14:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mock DW, Forbes LS (1992) parent–offspring conflict: a case of arrested development. Trends Ecol Evol 7:409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mock DW, Parker GA (1997) The evolution of sibling rivalry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Mondloch CJ (1995) Chick hunger and begging affect parental allocation of feedings in pigeons. Anim Behav 49:601–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neuenschwander S, Brinkhof MWG, Kölliker M, Richner H (2003) Brood size, sibling competition, and the cost of begging in great tits Parus major. Behav Ecol 14:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parker GA (1985) Models of parent–offspring conflict. V. Effects of the behaviour of the two parents. Anim Behav 33:519–533Google Scholar
  46. Parker GA, Macnair MR (1978) Models of parent–offspring conflict. I. Monogamy. Anim Behav 26:97–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Parker GA, Macnair MR (1979) Models of parent–offspring conflict. IV. Suppression: evolutionary retaliation by the parent. Anim Behav 27:1210–1235Google Scholar
  48. Parker GA, Mock DW, Lamey TC (1989) How selfish should stronger sibs be? Am Nat 133:846–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker GA, Royle NJ, Hartley IR (2002a) Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Phil Trans R Soc London B 357:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parker GA, Royle NJ, Hartley IR (2002b) Begging scrambles with unequal chicks: interactions between need and competitive ability. Ecol Lett 5:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rauter CM, Moore AJ (1999) Do honest signalling models of offspring solicitation apply to insects? Proc R Soc London B 266:1691–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Redondo T, Castro F (1992) Signalling of nutritional need by magpie nestlings. Ethology 92:193–204Google Scholar
  53. Ricklefs RE (1993) Sibling competition, hatching asynchrony, incubation period, and lifespan in altricial birds. Curr Ornithol 11:199–276Google Scholar
  54. Rodríguez-Gironés MA (1999) Sibling competition stabilizes signaling resolution models of parent–offspring conflict. Proc R Soc London B 266:1581–1591Google Scholar
  55. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Enquist M, Lachmann M (2001a) Role of begging and sibling competition in foraging strategies of nestlings. Anim Behav 61:733–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Zuniga JM, Redondo T (2001) Effects of begging on growth rates of nestling chicks. Behav Ecol 12:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Owens IPF, Parker GA (1999) Sibling competition and the evolution of growth rates in birds. Proc R Soc London B 266:923–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Parker GA (2002a) Sexual conflict reduces offspring fitness in zebra finches. Nature 416:733–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Parker GA (2002b) Begging for control: when are offspring solicitation behaviours honest? Trends Ecol Evol 17:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sederstrom R, Mayntz M, Sender G (2002) Effect of afterstimulation on milk yield and fat composition in beef cattle: a form of honest begging? Acta Agric Scand A 52:161–166Google Scholar
  61. Smiseth PT, Darwell CT, Moore AJ (2003a) Partial begging: an empirical model for the early evolution of offspring signaling. Proc R Soc London B: 270:1773–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smiseth PT, Bu RJ, Eikenæs AK, Amundsen T (2003b) Food limitation in asynchronous bluethroat broods: effects on food distribution, nestling begging, and parental provisioning rules. Behav Ecol 14:793–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stamps J, Metcalf RA, Krishnan VV (1978) A genetic analysis of parent-offspring conflict. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:369–392Google Scholar
  64. Stamps JA, Clarke AB, Arrowood B, Kus B (1985) Parent–offspring conflict in budgerigars. Behaviour 94:1–40Google Scholar
  65. Stockley P, Parker GA (2002) Life history consequences of mammal sibling rivalry. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:12932–12937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Teather KL (1992) An experimental study of competition for food resources between male and female nestlings of the red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:81–87Google Scholar
  67. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the decent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine Atherton, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  68. Trivers RL (1974) Parent–offspring conflict. Am Zool 14:249–264Google Scholar
  69. Weathers WW, Hodum PJ, Anderson DJ (1997) Is the energy cost of begging by nestling passerines surprisingly low? Auk 114:133Google Scholar
  70. Wells JCK (2003) Parent–offspring conflict theory, signaling of need, and weight gain in early life. Q Rev Biol 78:169–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Werren JH, Hatcher MJ, Godfray HCJ (2002) Maternal-offspring conflict leads to the evolution of dominant sex determination. Heredity 88:102–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Westneat DF, Rambo BT (2000) Copulation exposes female red-winged blackbirds to bacteria in male semen. J Avian Biol 31:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wolf JB (2000) Gene interactions from maternal effects. Evolution 54:1882–1898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Wolf JB, Brodie ED (1998) The coadaptation of parental and offspring characters. Evolution 52:299–308Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick J. Royle
    • 1
  • Ian R. Hartley
    • 2
  • Geoff A. Parker
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biological and Life Sciences, Graham Kerr BuildingUniversity of GlasgowGlasgow G12 8QQUK
  2. 2.School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Environmental and Natural SciencesUniversity of LancasterLancaster LA1 4YQUK
  3. 3.Population and Evolutionary Biology Research Group, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpool L69 7ZBUK

Personalised recommendations