Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 291–295 | Cite as

Molecular evidence for extra-pair paternity and intraspecific brood parasitism in the Black-headed Gull

  • Radka Ležalová-Piálková
Original Article

Abstract

Social monogamy is common among birds, while genetic monogamy is supposed to be rare. I have investigated the genetic mating system of the Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus in which, as in seabirds and most other long-lived and socially monogamous birds, extra-pair paternity (EPP) is typically rather infrequent. The parentage of 79 chicks from 30 broods was determined based on the analysis of six microsatellite markers. In this study population, evidence of allelic inconsistencies between putative parents and chicks as a result of both EPP and intraspecific brood parasitism (ISBP) was found in 43% of nests . Extra-pair paternity was detected in 33% (10/30) of broods, and 20% (16/79) of all nestlings were sired by extra-pair males. In addition, 9% (7/79) of chicks out of five nests (17%) were not the offspring of either member of the pair, indicating ISBP. These findings reveal a moderate rate of ISBP and a high rate of EPP in the Black-headed Gull compared with other related species and shows that the Black-headed Gulls successfully participate in extra-pair copulations.

Keywords

Black-headed Gull Genetic mating system Extra-pair paternity Intraspecific brood parasitism Larus ridibundus 

Zusammenfassung

Soziale Monogamie ist bei Vögeln weitverbreitet, während genetische Monogamie vermutlich selten ist. Ich habe das genetische Paarungssystem der Lachmöwe Larus ridibundus untersucht, bei der, wie bei Seevögeln und den meisten anderen langlebigen und sozial monogamen Vögeln, Fremdvaterschaft (EPP) normalerweise eher selten ist. Die Elternschaft wurde mittels sechs Mikrosatellitenmarkern für 79 Küken aus 30 Bruten ermittelt. In der untersuchten Population fand ich Belege für Allelinkonsistenzen zwischen Putativeltern und Küken in 43% der Nester, was sowohl auf EPP als auch auf intraspezifischen Brutparasitismus (ISBP) zurückzuführen war. Fremdvaterschaft wurde in 33% (10/30) der Bruten nachgewiesen, und 20% (16/79) aller Nestlinge wurden von Fremdvätern gezeugt. Außerdem stammten 9% (7/79) der Küken aus fünf Nestern (17%) weder von der Mutter noch vom Vater ab, was auf ISBP hindeutet. Diese Ergebnisse lassen eine im Vergleich zu anderen verwandten Arten mittlere ISBP-Rate und eine hohe EPP-Rate erkennen und zeigen, dass Lachmöwen erfolgreich Kopulationen außerhalb des Paarbundes eingehen.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by GAJU 51/2003/P-BF and MSM 6007665801 grants and was also supported by GAČR 206/05/H012. This study was carried out under permission 2KCDW 28/0/2003 and in accordance with the laws and ethical guidelines of the Czech Republic. I thank M. Honza for field assistance, J. Bryja for advice in the laboratory, D. Hardekopf for English corrections, and anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Arnold KE, Owens IPF (2002) Extra-pair paternity and egg dumping in birds: life history, parental care and the risk of retaliation. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1263–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds oxford. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1992) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bukacińska M, Bukaciński D, Epplen JT, Sauer KP, Lubjuhn T (1998) Low frequency of extra-pair paternity in common gulls (Larus canus) as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. J Ornithol 139:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cramp S (1983) The birds of the western palearctic, vol 3. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Duda N, Chetnicky W, Waldeck P, Andersson M (2008) Multiple maternity in Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus clutches as revealed by protein fingerprinting. J Avian Biol 39:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frantová D (2007) Mating activity of the black headed-gull (Larus ridibundus). Sylvia 43:51–60Google Scholar
  8. Fridolfsson AK, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J Avian Biol 30:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert L, Burke T, Krupa A (1998) No evidence of extra-pair paternity in the western gull. Mol Ecol 7:1549–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Given AD, Mills JA, Baker AJ (2002) Isolation of polymorphic microsatellite loci from the red-billed gull (Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus) and amplification in related species. Mol Ecol Notes 2:416–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman K (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 7:1071–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griggio M, Matessi M, Marin G (2004) No evidence of extra-pair paternity in a colonial seabird, the common tern (Sterna hirundo). Ital J Zool 71:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grønstøl G, Blomqvist D, Wagner RH (2006) The importance of genetic evidence for identifying intra-specific brood parasitism. J Avian Biol 37:197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helfenstein F, Tirard C, Danchin E, Wagner RH (2004) Low frequency of extra-pair paternity and high frequency of adoption in black-legged kittiwakes. Condor 106:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ibarguchi G, Gissing GJ, Gaston AJ, Boag PT, Friesen VL (2004) Male-biased mutation rates and the overestimation of extrapair paternity: problem, solution, and illustration using thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia, Alcidae). J Hered 95:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ležalová-Piálková R, Honza M (2008) Responses of Black-headed Gulls Larus ridibundus to conspecific brood parasitism. J Ornithol 149:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lifjeld JT, Harding AMA, Mehlum F, Øigarden T (2005) No evidence of extra-pair paternity in the little auk Alle alle. J Avian Biol 36:484–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorentsen S, Amundsen T, Anthonisen K, Lifjeld JT (2000) Molecular evidence for extrapair paternity and female-female pairs in antarctic petrels. Auk 117:1042–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martins TLF, Blakey JK, Wright J (2002) Low incidence of extra-pair paternity in the colonially nesting common swift Apus apus. J Avian Biol 33:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mauck RA, Waite TA, Parker PG (1995) Monogamy in leach’s storm-petrel: DNA-fingerprinting evidence. Auk 112:473–482Google Scholar
  23. Mills JA (1994) Extra-pair copulations in the red-billed gull-females with high quality, attentive males resist. Behaviour 128:41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1993) Cuckoldry and sociality: a comparative study of birds. Am Nat 142:118–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Møller AP, Ninni P (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection: a meta-analysis of paternity studies of birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neudorf DLH (2004) Extra pair paternity in birds: understanding variation among species. Auk 121:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westneat DF, Sherman PW (1997) Density and extra-pair fertilization in birds: a comparative study. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates and conflict. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yom-Tov Y (2001) An update list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Ibis 143:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Vertebrate BiologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations