IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v36y2025i2p1443-1449..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Escalated begging does not compromise nestling health

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Parejo-Pulido
  • Tomás Redondo
  • Silvia Casquero
  • Lorenzo Pérez-Rodríguez

Abstract

A widely accepted explanation for the reliability of offspring begging signals assumes a differential benefit model balanced by direct viability costs independent of offspring nutritional condition. However, supporting evidence for this idea is inconclusive and often hampered by methodological limitations, including differential stimulation protocols and reliance on single, potentially biased markers of nestling health. This study tested the existence of direct, intrinsic, and condition-independent allocation trade-offs between begging and body mass, immunity and oxidative stress by manipulating the begging effort of spotless starling (Sturnus unicolor) nestlings while maintaining constant food intake. We addressed potential problems of previous experimental protocols, ensuring uniform stimulation levels and evaluating multiple immune and oxidative markers. We observed no significant effects of experimentally increased begging effort in any of the 14 physiological markers analyzed, with 95% confidence intervals of effect sizes consistently including zero or one (for the lysis capacity of plasma), indicating no biologically relevant effects. Overall, our findings suggest no physiological trade-offs associated with intense begging.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Parejo-Pulido & Tomás Redondo & Silvia Casquero & Lorenzo Pérez-Rodríguez, 2025. "Escalated begging does not compromise nestling health," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 36(2), pages 1443-1449.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:36:y:2025:i:2:p:1443-1449.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/araf003
    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:36:y:2025:i:2:p:1443-1449.. 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.