IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v26y2015i2p465-471..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of increased begging and vitamin E supplements on oxidative stress and fledging probability

Author

Listed:
  • Lea Maronde
  • Heinz Richner

Abstract

The evolution of conspicuous begging displays has been suggested as the outcome of a conflict where offspring attempt to manipulate food allocation beyond the parental optimum. One resolution for the conflict arises via costs of begging, and oxidative stress has been proposed as a major mechanism for causing begging-induced costs. Although begging can be a physically demanding activity, the evidence for causing oxidative stress is scarce. Great tit (Parus major) parents provide food at the nest mostly from 2 different locations, which in consequence relaxes nestling competition. Here, we manipulated nestling competition by forcing parents to feed from a single location and supplemented half of the nestlings in each brood with vitamin E to test if this major antioxidant can alleviate a potential oxidative cost of begging. The design increases the cost of begging without altering parental feeding rates. Begging intensity was significantly higher when parents fed from a single location. Body mass and antioxidant capacity were not affected by the increase in begging, but oxidative damage was lower in females of the increased begging group compared with those in the control group, independent of vitamin E supplementation. The results suggest that oxidative stress is rather a minor cost of begging. Vitamin E–supplemented nestlings had a higher probability to fledge, which underlines the important role of vitamin E during development, although this might not be due to its role as an antioxidant.

Suggested Citation

  • Lea Maronde & Heinz Richner, 2015. "Effects of increased begging and vitamin E supplements on oxidative stress and fledging probability," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(2), pages 465-471.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:2:p:465-471.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru215
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Neuenschwander & Martin W. G. Brinkhof & Mathias Ko¨lliker & Heinz Richner, 2003. "Brood size, sibling competition, and the cost of begging in great tits (Parus major)," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 14(4), pages 457-462, July.
    2. José C. Noguera & Judith Morales & Cristobal Pérez & Alberto Velando, 2010. "On the oxidative cost of begging: antioxidants enhance vocalizations in gull chicks," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(3), pages 479-484.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kat Bebbington & Sjouke A. Kingma & Eleanor A. Fairfield & Lewis G. Spurgin & Jan Komdeur & David S. Richardson, 2017. "Consequences of sibling rivalry vary across life in a passerine bird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 407-418.
    2. Szabolcs Számadó & Dániel Czégel & István Zachar, 2019. "One problem, too many solutions: How costly is honest signalling of need?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Ros Gloag & Diego T. Tuero & Vanina D. Fiorini & Juan C. Reboreda & Alex Kacelnik, 2012. "The economics of nestmate killing in avian brood parasites: a provisions trade-off," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 132-140.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:26:y:2015:i:2:p:465-471.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.