Author
Listed:
- Mark I. Cook
- Steven R. Beissinger
- Gary A. Toranzos
- Roberto A. Rodriguez
- Wayne J. Arendt
Abstract
Many avian species initiate incubation before clutch completion, which causes eggs to hatch asynchronously. This influences brood competitive dynamics and often results in nestling mortality. The prevailing hypotheses contend that parents incubate early because asynchronous hatching provides fitness benefits to parents or surviving offspring. An alternative idea is that early incubation is the best of a bad job because of the costs of delaying incubation to the viability of first-laid eggs. To explore this, we examined the potential for microbial infection, and the relative effects of infection and suboptimal development temperatures on the viability of pearly-eyed thrasher (Margarops fuscatus) eggs. We exposed newly laid eggs for 5 days at either end of a tropical altitudinal gradient and cleaned shells of half the eggs to reduce microbial growth. Uncleaned eggs were infected more than were cleaned eggs, and infection was greater for eggs exposed at the cool, humid site than at the hot, less humid site. Parentally incubated eggs, however, were not infected, suggesting that incubation limits infection. The consequence of exposure to infection and high ambient temperatures was a dramatic reduction in viability; cleaned eggs held at the cool site had the highest hatching success, which was significantly greater than for uncleaned eggs at this site and for cleaned eggs held at the hot site. This provides the first evidence that microbes can infect unincubated eggs of a wild bird, and that infection and ambient temperature act independently to reduce hatching success. These factors could affect avian life-history strategies in diverse habitats. Copyright 2005.
Suggested Citation
Mark I. Cook & Steven R. Beissinger & Gary A. Toranzos & Roberto A. Rodriguez & Wayne J. Arendt, 2005.
"Microbial infection affects egg viability and incubation behavior in a tropical passerine,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 30-36, January.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:30-36
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
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:1:p:30-36. 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.