Journal of Ethology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 29–34 | Cite as

Post-fledging brood and care division in the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii)

  • Maggie J. Watson
  • Jeffrey A. Spendelow
  • Jeremy J. Hatch
Article

Abstract

Extended post-fledging parental care is an important aspect of parental care in birds, although little studied due to logistic difficulties. Commonly, the brood is split physically (brood division) and/or preferential care is given to a subset of the brood by one parent or the other (care division). Among gulls and tern (Laridae), males and females generally share parental activities during the pre-fledging period, but the allocation of parental care after fledging is little documented. This study examined the behaviour of male and female roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) during the late chick-rearing and early post-fledging periods, and in particular the amount of feeds and the time spent in attendance given to individual chicks/fledglings. Pre-fledging parental care was biparental in all cases. Post-fledging parental care was dependent on the number of fledglings in the brood. Males and females continued biparental care in clutches with one surviving fledgling, while in two-fledgling clutches, males fed the A-fledgling while females fed the B-fledgling. Overall, there was no difference in attendance, only in feeds. This division of care may be influenced by the male only being certain of the paternity of the A-chick but not by chick sex.

Keywords

Brood division Care division Parental care Post-fledging Roseate tern Sterna dougallii 

References

  1. Ashmole NP, Tovar SH (1968) Prolonged parental care in royal terns and other birds. Auk 85:90–100Google Scholar
  2. Barlow M (1998) Movements of Caspian terns (Sterna caspia) from a colony near Invercargill, New Zealand, and some notes on their behaviour. Notornis 45:193–220Google Scholar
  3. Bridge ES, Jones AW, Baker AJ (2005) A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution. Mol Phyl Evol 35:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger J (1980) The transition to independence and postfledging parental care in seabirds. In: Burger J, Olla BL, Winn HE (eds) Behavior of marine animals. Marine birds, vol 4. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cam E, Monnat J-Y, Hines JE (2003) Long-term fitness consequences of early conditions in the kittiwake. J Anim Ecol 72:411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  7. Cockburn A (2006) Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc R Soc B 273:1375–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feare CJ (1975) Post-fledging parental care in crested and sooty terns. Condor 77:368–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gochfeld M, Burger J, Nisbet ICT (1998) Roseate tern Sterna dougallii. In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, no. 370. The birds of North America Inc, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  10. González-Solís J, Sokolov E, Becker PH (2001) Courtship feedings, copulations and paternity in common terns. Anim Behav 61:1125–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griggio M, Giuliano 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
  12. Hamer KC, Schreiber EA, Burger J (2002) Breeding biology, life histories, and life history–environment interactions in seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger JA (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  13. Kvarnemo C (2006) Evolution and maintenance of male care: is increased paternity a neglected benefit of care? Behav Ecol 17:144–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Lessells CM (2002) Parentally biased favouritism: why should parents specialize in caring for different offspring? Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 357:381–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ligon JD (1983) Cooperation and reciprocity in avian social systems. Am Nat 121:336–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ligon JD (1999) The evolution of avian breeding systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. McLauglin RL, Montgomerie RD (1985) Brood division by Lapland longspurs. Auk 102:687–695Google Scholar
  19. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1993) Certainty of paternity covaries with paternal care in birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:361–368Google Scholar
  20. Nisbet ICT (1981) Biological characteristics of the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii. Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton CornerGoogle Scholar
  21. Nisbet ICT, Drury WH (1972) Measuring breeding success in common and roseate terns. Bird Banding 43:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nisbet ICT, Wingate DB, Szczys P (2010) Demographic consequences of a catastrophic event in the isolated population of common terns at Bermuda. Waterbirds 33:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Radford AN, Ridley AR (2006) Recruitment calling: a novel form of extended parental care in altrical species. Curr Biol 16:1700–1704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwagmeyer PL, St. Clair RC, Moodie JD, Lamey TC, Schnell GD, Moodie MN (1999) Species differences in male parental care in birds: a re-examination of correlates with paternity. Auk 116:487–503Google Scholar
  25. Shealer DA (1995) Male feeding and chick provisioning and their effects on breeding performance among known-age roseate terns at the Falkner Island Unit of the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Connecticut: 1997 research summary. Unpublished report to Little Harbor Laboratory, Inc., Guilford, CTGoogle Scholar
  26. Shealer DA, Spendelow JA (2002) Individual foraging strategies of kleptoparasitic roseate terns. Waterbirds 25:436–441Google Scholar
  27. Skutch AF (1976) Parent birds and their young. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  28. Slagsvold T (1997) Brood division in birds in relation to offspring size: sibling rivalry and parental control. Anim Behav 54:1357–1368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spear LB, Ainley DG, Henderson RP (1986) Post-fledging parental care in the Western gull. Condor 88:194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spendelow JA (1982) An analysiss of temporal variation in, and the effects of habitat modification on, the reproductive success of roseate terns. Colon Waterbird 5:18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spendelow JA, Zingo JM (1997) Female roseate tern fledges a chick following the death of her mate during the incubation period. Colon Waterbird 20:552–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spendelow JA, Burger J, Nisbet ICT, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Hays H, Cormons GD, Gochfeld M (1994) Sources of variation in loss rates of colorbands applied to adult roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) in the western North Atlantic. Auk 111:881–887Google Scholar
  33. Szczys P, Nisbet ICT, Hatch JJ, Kesseli RV (2001) Sex ratio bias at hatching and fledging in the roseate tern. Condor 103:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tarwater CE, Brawn JD (2008) Patterns of brood division and an absence of behavioral plasticity in a neotropical passerine. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1441–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vega LB, Graham JH, Millett JE, Richardson DS (2007) Extreme gender-based post-fledging brood division in the toc-toc. Behav Ecol 18:730–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner RH, Safina C (1989) Relative contribution of the sexes to chick feeding in roseate and common terns. Wilson Bull 101:497–500Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maggie J. Watson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jeffrey A. Spendelow
    • 2
  • Jeremy J. Hatch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA
  2. 2.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  3. 3.School of Animal and Veterinary SciencesCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations