4.2 Article

Division of parental duties confirms a need for bi-parental care in a precocial bird, the mute swan Cygnus olor

期刊

ANIMAL BIOLOGY
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 163-176

出版社

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1163/15707563-00002468

关键词

Bi-parental care; Cygnus olor; mute swan; precocial species; sex-related differences; time budget

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parental investment is much reduced in precocial species when compared with altricial species, which may explain a predominance of uni-parental care in this group of birds. In precocial wildfowl, biparental care is mostly restricted to arctic-breeding species, where the short reproductive season forces mates to cooperate in caring for the young, but a temperate breeding mute swan Cygnus olor is one of the few notable exceptions. In order to explain a need for bi-parental care in this species, we collected data on the time-budget of eleven swan breeding pairs from a Central European population. We found sex-related differences in the mean time allocated to incubation, movement, feeding, resting and aggression. Others behaviours (nest maintenance, alert and comfort) changed along the breeding season, but did not differ between sexes. Females were primarily responsible for providing care to the brood, whereas male activity focused on territory defence and family guarding. Females were exclusively responsible for incubation and they covered 85% of the total time allocated by parents to feeding cygnets. Nearly constant incubation in females limited possibilities for other activities, including foraging. Males allocated significantly more time than females to aggressive interactions, directed mainly towards other breeding pairs and non-breeders. A clear division of parental duties between sexes gave empirical support for the presence of bi-parental care in the mute swan, despite the fact that reproductive activities of this species are not constrained by the short length of the breeding season, as in arctic-breeding wildfowl.

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

4.2
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