IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i2p435-441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should I stay or should I go? Female brood desertion and male counterstrategy in rock sparrows

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Griggio
  • Giuliano Matessi
  • Andrea Pilastro

Abstract

Brood desertion involves a series of interactions between the members of a pair. This process is likely to be based on either member's perception of the other's propensity to desert. We manipulated this perception in males by experimentally increasing female body mass in the rock sparrow (Petronia petronia), a species in which females can desert their first brood before the nestlings from the first brood leave the nest. We predicted that the male would either desert the brood first or stay even if this implied the risk of caring for the brood alone. We found that males mated to loaded females did not leave but stayed and significantly increased their courtship rate and mate guarding. Unexpectedly, they also increased their food provisioning to the nestlings, even though loaded females did not reduce their nestling-feeding rate. The increase in male feeding rate may be explained as a way for the male to reduce the female's propensity to switch mate and desert or to increase her propensity to copulate with the male to obtain paternity in her next brood. Altogether, our results demonstrate that the perception of the risk of being deserted by the female does not necessarily induce males to desert first, contrary to what is generally assumed by theoretical models. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Griggio & Giuliano Matessi & Andrea Pilastro, 2005. "Should I stay or should I go? Female brood desertion and male counterstrategy in rock sparrows," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(2), pages 435-441, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:435-441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/ari009
    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:16:y:2005:i:2:p:435-441. 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.