4.4 Article

CONSPECIFIC BROOD PARASITISM IN COMMON EIDERS (SOMATERIA MOLLISSIMA): DO BROOD PARASITES TARGET SAFE NEST SITES?

Journal

AUK
Volume 127, Issue 4, Pages 765-772

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1525/auk.2010.09207

Keywords

Common Eider; conspecific brood parasitism; habitat selection; nest predation; nest survival; protein fingerprinting; Somateria mollissima

Categories

Funding

  1. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  2. Atlantic Cooperative Wildlife Ecology Research Network
  3. Northern Scientific Training Program
  4. Quebec Labrador Foundation
  5. University of North Dakota
  6. Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
  7. Department of Biology and School of Graduate Studies of Memorial University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of conspecific brood parasitism (CBP), and recent studies suggest that nest predation may be an important factor in shaping this behavior. We assessed whether individuals that engage in parasitic laying preferentially deposit their eggs in safe nest sites (i.e., risk assessment hypothesis). We tested the predictions of this hypothesis using a population of Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima dresseri) nesting at Table Bay, Labrador, Canada, in 2007. Common Eiders at this location nest in three habitats (dense woody vegetation, open grassy vegetation, and nest shelters) that vary in their exposure to avian predators. We used isoelectric focusing electrophoresis of egg albumen to quantify the frequency and distribution of CBP among habitats. Nest-site safety did not explain patterns of CBP among habitats, given that nests in dense woody vegetation had the highest probability of survival (0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.89) yet had the lowest frequency of CBP (33%). There was also no indication that parasitized and nonparasitized nests differed in their probability of nest survival (0.65 [95% CI: 0.41-0.83] vs. 0.58 [95% CI: 0.33-0.80]). We propose explanations for why our data did not support the risk assessment hypothesis. Received 20 October 2009, accepted 8 April 2010.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available