4.5 Article

Resource availability, but not polyandry, influences sibling conflict in a burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 1093-1100

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arx073

关键词

burying beetle; laying asynchrony; Nicrophorus; vespilloides; polyandry; resource availability; sibling conflict

资金

  1. Holsworth Wildlife Research Fund
  2. King's College London
  3. Australian Research Council [DE150100336]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [1483967] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Australian Research Council [DE150100336] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conflict over resources is a fundamental component of family life. Family conflicts are predicted to be strongly influenced by resource availability and levels of relatedness between family members. Here, we examined the effects of these factors on intra-brood sibling conflict in a family living beetle, Nicrophorus vespilloides, where offspring are partially dependent on parental provisioning. Specifically, we measured the intensity of offspring begging behavior in response to experimental manipulation of 1) relatedness between siblings (through mating females monogamously or polyandrously) and 2) resource availability (through varying the amount of resources at the onset of breeding). We found no effect of polyandry on sibling conflict or patterns of female reproductive investment, but we did find that sibling conflict was influenced by resource availability. Specifically, larvae spent more time begging on smaller carcasses, but only in smaller clutches. In addition, we found that resource availability affected patterns of female reproductive investment: when resource availability was low, females laid eggs more synchronously and produced fewer eggs but of a larger size. We discuss potential explanations for these results, and the implications of this study for understanding the factors that mediate family dynamics.

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

4.5
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