4.7 Article

An integrative measure of cognitive performance, but not individual task performance, is linked to male reproductive output in budgerigars

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91213-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH NIMHD [G12MD007592]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that female budgerigars did not base their social mate choice on male cognitive performance, but males with higher cognitive scores sired and raised more offspring in extra-pair mating and continued reproductive investment stages. Females increased their reproductive investment with males scoring higher in detour-reaching in the continued reproductive investment stage.
Cognitive abilities such as learning and memory are key for survival and reproduction. Individuals with high cognitive abilities may be more successful at attracting mates and producing offspring. However, empirical tests of and evidence supporting this hypothesis remain scarce. We measured cognitive performance of male budgerigars in four tasks: problem solving, detour reaching, seed discrimination, and spatial memory. We then tested female choice for male cognition at three stages of the mating choice process: social pairing, extra-pair mating, and continued reproductive investment with a social mate. We also measured female reproductive output. We used an integrative measure of male cognitive performance that encapsulates performance across all tasks, the 'composite cognitive score' by summing performance on the four tasks. In the first stage, females did not choose their social mates based on any of the measures of male cognitive performance. In the second stage, however, males with higher composite cognitive scores sired and raised more offspring. In the third stage, females increased their reproductive investment after the first breeding attempt when paired with males with higher detour-reaching scores. These results suggest that female reproductive decisions may shape overall male cognitive performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据