4.4 Article

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

期刊

AUK
卷 127, 期 4, 页码 765-772

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1525/auk.2010.09207

关键词

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

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.4
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