Enduring rules of care within pairs - how blue tit parents resume provisioning behaviour after experimental disturbance

Sexual conflict over parental investment can result in suboptimal reproductive output. A recent hypothesis suggests that equality in investment, and hence conflict resolution, may be reached via coordination of parental activities like alternating nest visits. However, how robust patterns of care within couples are against temporal disturbances that create asymmetries in parental investment remains as yet to be shown. We here experimentally created such a social disturbance in a wild population of biparental blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) when provisioning their nestlings. We randomly caught and subsequently released one of the parents when nestlings were 6 and 12 days old respectively. On average, the parent that was caught did not resume care for nearly two hours. We then compared the levels of individual investment and within-pair coordination before, during and after the absence of the disturbed parent. We show that the remaining parent partially compensated by increasing its provisioning rate, but this compensatory response was strongest in females when nestlings were 6 days old. Once the caught parent returned to feed its nestlings, both parents resumed provisioning at a similar rate as before the disturbance. Likewise, the within-pair alternation level quickly resembled the pre-manipulated level, independent of nestling age or which sex was caught. Thus our experiment highlights the resilience of parental behaviour against temporal disturbances of individual parents.

Turn-taking in cooperative offspring care: by-product of individual provisioning behavior or active response rule?

Abstract

For individuals collaborating to rear offspring, effective organization of resource delivery is difficult because each carer benefits when the others provide a greater share of the total investment required. When investment is provided in discrete events, one possible solution is to adopt a turn-taking strategy whereby each individual reduces its contribution rate after investing, only increasing its rate again once another carer contributes. To test whether turn-taking occurs in a natural cooperative care system, here we use a continuous time Markov model to deduce the provisioning behavior of the chestnut-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus ruficeps), a cooperatively breeding Australian bird with variable number of carers. Our analysis suggests that turn-taking occurs across a range of group sizes (2–6), with individual birds being more likely to visit following other individuals than to make repeat visits. We show using a randomization test that some of this apparent turn-taking arises as a by-product of the distribution of individual inter-visit intervals (“passive” turn-taking) but that individuals also respond actively to the investment of others over and above this effect (“active” turn-taking). We conclude that turn-taking in babblers is a consequence of both their individual provisioning behavior and deliberate response rules, with the former effect arising through a minimum interval required to forage and travel to and from the nest. Our results reinforce the importance of considering fine-scale investment dynamics when studying parental care and suggest that behavioral rules such as turn-taking may be more common than previously thought.

Significance statement

Caring for offspring is a crucial stage in the life histories of many animals and often involves conflict as each carer typically benefits when others contribute a greater share of the work required. One way to resolve this conflict is to monitor when other carers contribute and adopt a simple “turn-taking” rule to ensure fairness, but natural parental care has rarely been studied in sufficient detail to identify such rules. Our study investigates whether cooperatively breeding chestnut-crowned babblers “take turns” delivering food to offspring, and (if so) whether this a deliberate strategy or simply a by-product of independent care behavior. We find that babblers indeed take turns and conclude that part of the observed turn-taking is due to deliberate responsiveness, with the rest arising from the species’ breeding ecology.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00265-017-2391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.