Oecologia

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 350–355 | Cite as

Reproductive tactics under severe egg predation: an eider’s dilemma

Behavioural Ecology

Abstract

Parental defence against predators may increase offspring survival but entail other costs. Egg predation is frequent early in the laying sequence of the common eider, which differs in this and in several other ways from most other waterfowl. We test the hypothesis that permanent presence at the nest from the second or third egg is an adaptation for reducing egg predation in eiders. Two other alternative hypotheses for lower predation at later nest stages are early predation loss of the most vulnerable nests and seasonal decrease in predation risk. Analyses of predation rates at the one-egg and later stages refute these two alternatives. Early nest attendance by eider females is estimated to increase clutch survival by about 20% in four-egg and 35% in five-egg clutches, albeit probably at a cost of smaller clutch size.

Keywords

Clutch size Egg survival Laying sequence Nest predation Parental defence 

References

  1. Afton A, Paulus S (1992) Incubation and brood care. In: Batt BDJ, Afton BD, Anderson MG, Ankney CD, Johnson DH, Kadlec JA, Krapu GL (eds) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 62–108Google Scholar
  2. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlén I, Andersson Å (1970) Breeding ecology of an eider population on Spitsbergen. Ornis Scand 1:83–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Åhlund M (2005) Behavioural tactics at nest visits differ between parasites and hosts in a brood parasitic duck. Anim Behav 70:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alisauskas RT, Ankney CD (1992) The cost of egg laying and its relationship to nutrient reserves in waterfowl. In: Batt BDJ, Afton BD, Anderson MG, Ankney CD, Johnson DH, Kadlec JA, Krapu GL (eds) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 30–61Google Scholar
  6. Andersson M, Åhlund M (2001) Protein fingerprinting: a new technique reveals extensive conspecific brood parasitism. Ecology 82:1433–1442Google Scholar
  7. Andersson M, Wiklund CG, Rundgren H (1980) Parental defence of offspring: a model and an example. Anim Behav 28:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjørn TH, Erikstad KE (1994) Patterns of intraspecific nest parasitism in the High Arctic common eider (Somateria mollissima borealis). Can J Zool 72:1027–1034Google Scholar
  9. Bolduc F, Guillemette M (2003) Incubation constancy and mass loss in the Common Eider Somateria mollissima. Ibia 145:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bustnes JO, Erikstad KE (1991) Parental care in the common eider (Somateria mollissima): factors affecting abandonment and adoption of young. Can J Zool 69:1538–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell LH (1975) Predation on eiders Somateria mollissima by the glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus in Spitsbergen. Ornis Scand 6:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooch FG (1965) The breeding biology and management of the northern eider (Somateria mollissima borealis) in the Cape Dorset Area, Northwest Territories. Wildl Manage Bull Ser 2, No 10, p 68Google Scholar
  14. Cramp S, Simmons KEL (1977) Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The birds of the western palearctic, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 595–604Google Scholar
  15. Davies JC, Cooke F (1983) Intraclutch hatch synchronization in the lesser snow goose. Can J Zool 61:1398–1401Google Scholar
  16. Del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (1992) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol 1. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  17. Erikstad KE, Tveraa T (1995) Does the cost of incubation set limits on clutch size in common eiders Somateria mollissima? Oecologia 103:270–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabrielsen G, Mehlum F, Karlsen HE, Andersen Ø, Parker H (1991) Energy cost during incubation and thermoregulation in female common eiders Somateria mollissima. Norsk Polarinst Skrif 195:51–62Google Scholar
  19. Götmark F (1989) Costs and benefits to eiders nesting in gull colonies: a field experiment. Ornis Scand 20:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Götmark F, Åhlund M (1984) Do field observers attract nest predators and influence nesting success of common eiders? J Wildl Manage 48:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Götmark F, Åhlund M (1986) Nest predation and nest site selection among eiders Somateria mollissima: the influence of gulls. Ibis 130:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorman ML, Milne H (1972) Creche behaviour in the common eider, Somateria m. mollissima L. Ornis Scand 3:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanssen SA, Engebretsen H, Erikstad KE (2002) Incubation start and egg size in relation to body reserves in the common eider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanssen SA, Erikstad KE, Johnsen V, Bustnes JO (2003) Differential investment and costs during avian incubation determined by individual quality: an experimental study of the common eider (Somateria mollissima). Proc R Soc Lond B 270:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson DH (1979) Estimating nest success: the Mayfield method and an alternative. Auk 96:651–661Google Scholar
  26. Johnson DH (1999) The insignificance of significance testing. J Wildl Manage 63:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilpi M, Lindström K (1997) Habitat-specific clutch size and cost of incubation in common eiders, Somateria mollissima. Oecologia 111:297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klett AT, DH Johnson (1982) Variability in nest survival rates and implications to nesting studies. Auk 99:77–87Google Scholar
  29. Korschgen CE (1977) Breeding stress of female eiders in Maine. J Wildl Manage 41:360–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loos ER, Rohwer FC (2004) Laying-stage nest attendance and onset of incubation in prairie nesting ducks. Auk 121:587–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehlum F (1991) Egg predation in a breeding colony of the common eider Somateria mollissima in Kongsfjorden, Svalbard. Norsk Polarinst Skrif 195:37–45Google Scholar
  32. Milne H (1974) Breeding numbers and reproductive rates of eiders at the Sands of Forvie Nature Reserve, Scotland. Ibis 116:135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milne H (1976) Body weights and carcass composition of the Common Eider. Wildfowl 27:115–122Google Scholar
  34. Munro J, Bedard J (1977) Gull predation and crèching behavior in the common eider. J Anim Ecol 46:799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Öst M, Mantila L, Kilpi M (2002) Shared care provides time-budgeting advantages for female eiders. Anim Behav 64:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker H, Holm H (1990) Patterns of nutrient and energy-expenditure in female common eiders nesting in the high arctic. Auk 107:660–668Google Scholar
  37. Ricklefs RE (1969) An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smith Contrib Zool 9:1–48Google Scholar
  38. Robertson GJ (1998) Egg adoption can explain joint egg-laying in common eiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson GJ, Cooke F (1993) Intraclutch egg-size variation and hatching success in the common eider. Can J Zool 71:544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schamel D (1977) Breeding of the common eider (Somateria mollissima) on the Beaufort Sea Cost of Alaska. Condor 79:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmutz JK, Robertson RJ, Cooke F (1983) Colonial nesting of the Hudson Bay eider duck. Can J Zool 61:2424–2433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swennen C, Ursem JCH, Duiven P (1993) Determinate laying and egg attendance in common eiders. Ornis Scand 24:48–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  44. Waldeck P, Andersson M (2006) Brood parasitism and nest takeover in common eiders. Ethology (in press)Google Scholar
  45. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  46. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  47. Zink AG (2003) Quantifying the costs and benefits of parental care in female treehoppers. Behav Ecol 14:687–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Ecology, Department of ZoologyUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations