Nest desertion is not predicted by cuckoldry in the Eurasian penduline tit.
Engagement in extra-pair copulations is an example of the abundant conflicting interests between males and females over reproduction. Potential benefits for females and the risk of cuckoldry for males are expected to have important implications on the evolution of parental care. However, whether parents adjust parental care in response to parentage remains unclear. In Eurasian penduline tits Remiz pendulinus, which are small polygamous songbirds, parental care is carried out either by the male or by the female. In addition, one third of clutches is deserted by both male and female. Desertion takes place during the egg-laying phase. Using genotypes of nine microsatellite loci of 443 offspring and 211 adults, we test whether extra-pair paternity predicts parental care. We expect males to be more likely to desert cuckolded broods, whereas we expect females, if they obtain benefits from having multiple sires, to be more likely to care for broods with multiple paternity. Our results suggest that parental care is not adjusted to parentage on an ecological timescale. Furthermore, we found that male attractiveness does not predict cuckoldry, and we found no evidence for indirect benefits for females (i.e., increased growth rates or heterozygosity of extra-pair offspring). We argue that male Eurasian penduline tits may not be able to assess the risk of cuckoldry; thus, a direct association with parental care is unlikely to evolve. However, timing of desertion (i.e., when to desert during the egg-laying phase) may be influenced by the risk of cuckoldry. Future work applying extensive gene sequencing and quantitative genetics is likely to further our understanding of how selection may influence the association between parentage and parental care.
van Dijk
René E
RE
Mészáros
Lidia A
LA
van der Velde
Marco
M
Székely
Tamás
T
Pogány
Akos
A
Szabad
János
J
Komdeur
Jan
J
Genetica. 2008 Sep;134(1):147-58
17973192
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Nov 22;274(1627):2865-71
17785270
Anim Behav. 1998 Feb;55(2):319-29
9480700
Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Jan;20(1):33-8
16701338
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jun 22;268(1473):1287-91
11410156
Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 May;8(3):692-4
21585873
Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Mar;19(3):127-34
16701243
Mol Ecol. 2001 May;10(5):1301-8
11380885
Mol Ecol. 2007 Mar;16(5):1099-106
17305863
Nature. 1999 Sep 23;401(6751):368-71
10517633
Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Jan 22;267(1439):147-50
10687819
J Evol Biol. 2009 Oct;22(10):2020-30
19678863
Evolution. 1999 Aug;53(4):1259-1267
28565537
Evolution. 2004 Sep;58(9):2037-48
15521460
Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Aug 7;271 Suppl 5:S290-2
15503997
Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):714-7
14562103
J Evol Biol. 2010 Feb;23(2):271-81
20487130
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):341-50
11958702
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Oct 7;268(1480):2021-7
11571049
BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Jun 30;9:147
19566922
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Apr 7;272(1564):759-67
15870038
Am Nat. 2005 May;165 Suppl 5:S26-37
15795859
Mol Ecol. 2008 Jun;17(11):2566-80
18452517
Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Mar 22;265(1395):489-95
9569667
BMC Evol Biol. 2009 May 16;9:104
19445699
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jun 22;269(1497):1263-9
12065043
Evolution. 2008 Jan;62(1):145-56
18053073
Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384-7
7123238
Curr Biol. 2009 May 12;19(9):792-7
19409787
Mol Ecol. 2007 Sep;16(17):3679-88
17845440
J Evol Biol. 2008 Jul;21(4):919-48
18462318
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):351-62
11958703
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jan 22;276(1655):337-45
18812289
J Evol Biol. 2007 Sep;20(5):1739-44
17714291
Mol Ecol. 2002 Dec;11(12):2467-74
12453232
Nature. 2002 Jan 3;415(6867):71-3
11780118
Mol Ecol. 2008 Jun;17(12):2975-84
18494765
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Aug 7;268(1476):1559-65
11487402