IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v15y2004i2p219-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Replacement female house sparrows regularly commit infanticide: gaining time or signaling status?

Author

Listed:
  • José P. Veiga

Abstract

Although the killing of unrelated young (usually designed as infanticide) has been typically considered a male behavior, recent research has shown that females may commit infanticide even more frequently than do males. In rodents and primates, female infanticide represents a strategy associated to competition for resources or infant exploitation, but little is known about the causes and reproductive consequences of the killing of conspecifics by females in other vertebrates. In the present article, I focus on infanticide committed by females that replace mates of territorial males in a population of the house sparrow. I show that (1) replacement females regularly committed infanticide, (2) experienced females committed infanticide more frequently than did novel females and tended to select polygynous males to take over their nests, and (3) laying date and reproductive success after a territory takeover did not differ between infanticidal and noninfanticidal females. These results seem to indicate that infanticide has not evolved in females because of the short-term reproductive benefits it accrues to the perpetrator. I suggest that the killing of unrelated young by females relates to dominance status among potential female breeders and that this behavior benefits the perpetrators in terms of mate selection. Copyright 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • José P. Veiga, 2004. "Replacement female house sparrows regularly commit infanticide: gaining time or signaling status?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(2), pages 219-222, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:2:p:219-222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:2:p:219-222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.