Abstract
In most taxa with altricial young, offspring solicit food from their parents using a combination of visual and acoustic stimuli, but exactly what these young are communicating, and how selection shapes parental responses, remains unresolved. Theory posits that parents’ interpretation and response to begging should vary with the likelihood of a return on their investment. We tested this in a wild population of prothonotary warblers (Protonotaria citrea), predicting that parents bias food non-randomly toward certain individuals within their broods depending on both the size and number of offspring. We observed parent–offspring interactions and detected strong dependence between brood size and nestling size in shaping parental responses to begging. Larger siblings were less likely to solicit food during feeding events than their smaller siblings, but they received a disproportionate share from parents in nests containing fewer-than-average young, whereas the smaller-than-average nestlings were disproportionately fed in broods containing a greater-than-average number of young. These findings suggest that parents respond to begging signals according to multiple social cues, favoring the stronger siblings with greater survival prospects when few copies of their genes are present, but overtly favoring runts to ensure whole-brood survival when capable of fledging more young. Future experimental studies may shed light on the contributions of parental decision-making and memory, how young nestlings learn in parent–offspring communication systems, and the adaptive significance of these behaviors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
To maximize fitness, altricial young should make the most of a critical window of time, early in life, in which to grow and mature prior to having to survive without parental assistance, whereas fitness maximization for parents requires the optimization of a trade-off between investment among multiple offspring both within and among reproductive events, thereby constraining the availability of resources for individual young (Williams 1966; Trivers 1974; Smith and Fretwell 1974; Macnair and Parker 1979; Parker et. al. 2002; Royle et al. 2012; Hodges et al. 2015). It follows, then, that intense selection should favor overt solicitations (i.e., begging) by offspring for limiting parental food resources. Indeed, offspring in many taxa, including amphibians, birds, insects, mammals, spiders, and possibly some plants, solicit food from their parents using a combination of stimuli (e.g., Smith and Montgomerie 1991; Kilner and Johnstone 1997; Wright and Leonard 2002; Leonard and Horn 2005; Kölliker et al. 2006; Grodzinski and Lotem 2007; Hinde et al. 2009; Madden et al. 2009; Smiseth et al. 2011; Bowers et al. 2016b; Capodeanu-Nägler et al. 2018a, b; Mattey et al. 2018). However, parents do not always feed begging offspring or even attempt to treat them equally (Mock and Parker 1997; Leonard and Horn 2001; Forbes 2007; Smiseth et al. 2007; Barnett et al. 2011; Bowers et al. 2011; Wiebe and Slagsvold 2012; Caro et al. 2016a). Indeed, in a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate clades, parents only feed a subset of their offspring, usually just one, during a given provisioning event (Mock and Parker 1997; Manser et al. 2008; Dor and Lotem 2010; Barnett et al. 2012), and how parents choose who to feed remains unresolved.
Begging solicitations are particularly apparent in birds (Fig. 1), in which altricial young make postural gestures that include flaunting conspicuous, brightly colored mouths and repetitively calling to attract parental attention (e.g., Kilner 2002), but the exact causes, consequences, and meaning of begging signals for parents are not always clear (Royle et al. 2002; Grodzinski et al. 2011; Hinde and Godfray 2011; Johnstone and Kilner 2011; Mock et al. 2011; Wright 2011; Caro et al. 2016a). Several hypotheses might explain the information parents glean from begging signals: parents might respond to begging simply as a proximate signal of hunger underlying a nestling’s desire to be fed and allowing parents to make a quick decision, or as an ultimate, condition-dependent expression of offspring reproductive value (Godfray 1991; Glassey and Forbes 2002; Wiebe and Slagsvold 2009; Mock et al. 2011; Fresneau et al. 2018). In the latter case, parents might perceive begging as either a signal of need or signal of quality. If parents perceive begging as a signal of need, feeding decisions should be aimed at benefitting the survival prospects of the offspring for whom a unit increase in parental investment yields the greatest marginal increase in survival probability; in other words, parents choose to feed runts (Godfray 1995; Kilner 1995; Price and Ydenberg 1995; Kilner and Johnstone 1997; Cotton et al. 1999; Godfray and Johnstone 2000; Saino et al. 2000a; Koykka and Wild 2018). Alternatively, if begging is a signal of quality, parents should feed the young with the best chance of survival; in other words, parents actively choose to feed the healthiest young that are most likely to survive, as this is least likely to constitute a wasted investment (Grafen 1990; Lotem 1998; Royle et al. 2002; Mock et al. 2005, 2011; Bowers et al. 2019a).
Nestling begging is generally thought of as being costly and, thus, representative of an honest signal (Kilner 2001; Wells 2003; but see also Moreno-Rueda 2007), although such signals do not always need to be costly to be honest (Számadó 2011). But what, exactly, constitutes honesty depends on the message nestlings are conveying. Positively condition-dependent begging, where offspring in better condition beg more intensely, is often assumed to represent dishonest signaling, and it has been observed in just as many species as putatively honest, negatively condition-dependent begging, where nestlings in poor condition beg more intensely (Caro et al. 2016b). However, positively condition-dependent begging would only be dishonest if begging is intended to signal need but would be honest if signaling quality. For example, a recent field experiment involving the direct manipulation of offspring condition revealed that nestlings in better condition (1) begged more intensely than those in poorer condition, (2) received an increase in parental feedings corresponding to their increased begging, and (3) had a higher likelihood of recruiting into the local population as breeding adults in the future (Bowers et al. 2019a). These findings suggest that positively condition-dependent begging can serve as an honest signal of quality, and that parents further use information about offspring size, condition, and other morphological traits when making feeding decisions (see also Kilner 1997; Saino et al. 2000b; Loiseau et al. 2008b; Dugas 2009; Romano et al. 2016; Pirrello et al. 2017). While nestling phenotype and begging intensity are important to parents in making feeding decisions, it is possible that parents also use previous experience to weigh these decisions. The memory of which nestlings have recently been fed, either through spatial memory of the arrangement of nestlings within the nest or through episodic memory of specific feeding events, could influence parental feeding patterns. Spatial and episodic memory have primarily been tested in food-caching species (Clayton 1998; Salwiczek et al. 2010; Watanabe 2018; Branch et al. 2019); thus, the potential influence of long-term memories on parental investment decisions of non-caching species, if any, is unclear.
Parents may embark on a breeding cycle intending to distribute resources equally and keep all their young alive, but, if conditions deteriorate, fitness maximization may require a different strategy (Caro et al. 2016a; Koykka and Wild 2018; Li et al. 2019). Such a situation arises in birds, in which numerous factors (e.g., brood size, nestling size, resource availability) can shape parents’ perception of how their nesting attempt is progressing. Indeed, the number of young produced as eggs usually exceeds the number of young reared to independence, typically because of asymmetric sibling rivalry, low resource availability, or partial nest destruction or parasitism (Mock and Forbes 1995; Forbes et al. 1997, 2002; Hoover and Robinson 2007; Forbes 2011; Louder et al. 2015). Similarly, recent research in a cooperative breeder revealed that responsiveness to begging varied with group composition, suggesting that parents modify their investment according to multiple environmental cues (MacLeod and Brouwer 2018). Thus, parental responses to begging signals likely vary with ecological conditions and the anticipated return on parental investment (Roulin et al. 2010; Caro et al. 2016a; Koykka and Wild 2018).
In this observational study, we analyze parental responsiveness to condition-dependent nestling begging in a wild population of prothonotary warblers (Protonotaria citrea), predicting that, if parental responsiveness varies with the expected return on their investment, then responses to nestling begging should vary with both brood size and nestling condition. The number of young fledged is among the strongest determinants of parental fitness in wild birds (McCleery et al. 2004; Williams 2012), and getting as many offspring through to fledging as possible necessitates keeping even the runts of the brood alive; thus, we predicted that when rearing broods with relatively more young, parents may respond to signals of need and preferentially feed smaller siblings. However, offspring body mass is also commonly associated with parental fitness, as individual differences in body mass among offspring prior to independence positively predict their survival and recruitment as breeding adults in most species studied to date (e.g., Clutton-Brock and Sheldon 2010). This latter effect on parental fitness is not as strong as the number of fledglings produced (McCleery et al. 2004; Williams 2012). Thus, we posit that, when brood size is reduced, thereby reducing the number of copies of parents’ genes that can possibly be transmitted, parents should respond to signals of quality, biasing food toward the larger offspring in better condition (see also Saino et al. 2000a, b; Caro et al. 2016a; Koykka and Wild 2018) so as to maximize their probability of post-fledging survival. We weighed all nestlings before and after observing parental feedings within the nest, predicting that any parental feeding preferences should also shape nestling weight gain during our observations in addition to prefledging mass, size, and survival.
Methods
Study species and site
Prothonotary warblers are small (14–16 g), insectivorous, cavity-nesting songbirds. They are Neotropical–Nearctic migrants whose endemic breeding range lies predominantly in the southeastern United States (Tonra et al. 2019; Youtz et al. 2020), and they frequently nest in human-made nest boxes when available (Twedt and Henne-Kerr 2001; Slevin et al. 2018; Mueller et al. 2019b). The number of eggs laid by the female per clutch is typically four or five, averaging 4.2 ± 0.1 eggs (mean ± SE), and can vary in part with maternal age (Blem et al. 1999), whereas brood size at fledging is 3.4 ± 0.1 young (mean ± SE), typically a result of brood reduction in asynchronously hatched broods (Petit 1989). Only the female incubates eggs and broods ectothermic hatchlings, but these young are typically provisioned with arthropod prey by both parents (Petit 1999). Nests are often targeted by the brood parasitic brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), which can be a major cause of nest failure (Petit 1999). However, none of the broods being provisioned in this study contained any parasitic cowbird young.
This study was conducted on a wild population of prothonotary warblers in the 2019 breeding season at the Meeman Biological Station, lying east of the Mississippi River in southwestern Tennessee (35.363° N, 90.017° W). From 2017–2018, there were 220 nestboxes distributed over ca. 100 ha of the forest; prior to the 2019 field season, we expanded this network to 600 nest boxes distributed over ca. 250 ha. available for breeding prothonotary warblers. Nestboxes rest ca. 1.5 m aboveground atop a 51-cm-diameter aluminum predator baffle (further details in Mueller et al. 2019a, b), and the surrounding habitat is mostly mature, secondary deciduous forest comprised of white and red oak (Quercus spp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Procedures
During the 2019 breeding season, we visited all nestboxes twice per week to determine clutch-initiation dates. Beginning about halfway through incubation, which lasts ca. 13–14 days (Mueller et al. 2019a), we captured all females on the nest while incubating, and we captured adult males using song playback and mist nets located near the nest. Both females and males received a uniquely numbered, aluminum leg band, and males received three additional, colored leg bands arranged in unique combinations so they could subsequently be identified visually (males are more difficult to recapture than females). We then monitored the progress and status of each nest and, six days after hatching began, we collected digital videos from both inside (SQ11 mini HD camera) and outside (Kodak Zx1 or Zx5) each nest. Videos typically lasted an hour per nest, demonstrating nestling and parent behaviors and allowing us to observe begging by individual nestlings (vocally and by gaping open their mouths) and assess who was fed using the internal cameras. For simplicity, we consider nestlings raising their head and gaping open their mouths to reflect a begging solicitation (Fig. 1), providing an objective, non-qualitative metric indicating whether nestlings either did or did not solicit food. In some species, provisioning behavior and parental care may differ according to parent sex (Leonard and Horn 1996); thus, to determine whether provisioning behavior differed between males and females in our study, we identified parents visiting the nest to feed as either the resident male or female using the external cameras. We were able to uniquely identify the individual nestlings in the internal videos by placing, at random, a dab of nontoxic white paint in various locations on the nestlings’ heads. Before filming each nest, we weighed nestlings (± 0.1 g) using an electronic balance and marked them with white paint as described above. We then weighed each nestling again after the recording was completed, and we used these pre- and post-video weight measurements to analyze changes in nestling mass during our observations. We subsequently visited each nest on day 8 post-hatching to process nestlings prior to fledging and obtain measures of phenotypic condition (Sakaluk et al. 2014; Barnett et al. 2015). This involved banding all nestlings and obtaining measures of pre-fledging mass (± 0.1 g), tarsus length (± 0.1 mm), and wing-chord length (± 0.5 mm).
Nests are defended to an extent from ground-dwelling predators by baffles under the nest boxes, and enjoy high rates of fledging success (73.3% of 191 warbler nests produced from the onset of the study in 2017 through 2019 successfully fledged young); of the nests that successfully fledge any young, ca. 60% of them fledge all of the offspring produced as eggs. However, nearly 40% of successful breeding pairs fail to rear all their offspring to fledging.
Data and analyses
All analyses were conducted using Statistical Analysis Software (ver. 9.4), with two-tailed hypotheses (α = 0.05). In total, we compiled behavioral observations of parents and offspring at 61 nests produced by a total of 42 unique females; thus, we included maternal identity as a random effect where appropriate to account for the non-independence of nests produced by the same female (in only a few instances did a female produce multiple broods sired by different males). Similarly, when analyzing individual nestlings, we also included nest as a random effect to account for the non-independence of siblings within broods. We analyzed begging and feeding as binary outcomes (i.e., nestlings either did or did not beg, and were or were not fed), using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) with binomial error distributions. Initially, we analyzed the begging behavior of nestlings in relation to the sex of the feeding parent, which revealed no difference between male and female parents in the nestlings’ probability of begging (F1, 870.6 = 0.01; P = 0.917), nor was there any interaction between parent sex and nestlings’ relative mass prior to our observation in their effect on the probability of begging (F1, 827.7 = 1.02; P = 0.313). Similarly, the probability of any individual nestling getting fed did not differ between the male and female parent (F1, 868 = 0.00; P = 0.965), and neither did parent sex interact with nestlings’ relative mass to influence their probability of being fed (F1, 868 = 0.05; P = 0.829). Thus, we pooled individual feedings by male and female parents when analyzing nestling begging.
We then used pre- and post-observation masses to calculate individual masses relative to the rest of the brood (i.e., relative mass) as the difference between an individual nestling and the brood mean. Thus, positive relative mass values indicate above-average siblings and negative values below-average siblings. We analyzed these changes in nestling mass as the dependent variable in relation to differences in pre-observation mass and brood size. We also used these relative masses as an independent variable in predicting begging and feeding. We then tested, for individual nestlings, whether its relative mass interacted with the size of the brood in influencing (1) the nestling’s probability of begging and being fed during parental feeding visits (using a GLMM as described above), and (2) growth during and after our observations (using linear mixed models).
Results
Undersized nestlings (i.e., runts with a smaller relative mass prior to our observations) begged more frequently overall during our observations than larger nestlings (estimate ± SE = − 0.367 ± 0.099; F1, 203 = 13.60; P < 0.001; Fig. 2a), and nestlings that begged more received more food (estimate ± SE = 0.205 ± 0.030; F1, 203 = 46.44; P < 0.001; Fig. 2b inset). However, parents did not respond uniformly to nestling begging solicitations. Some nestlings were fed every time they begged, whereas others were not fed at all during our observations despite soliciting food from parents. On average, parents made 5.6 ± 2.5 feeding trips per observation (mean ± SD), and a given nestling was fed on 40.5 ± 30.9% of feeding trips during which they solicited food (mean ± SD; Fig. 2b).
Parents biased feedings toward nestlings primarily on the basis of size-differences among siblings within broods, but this bias was dependent upon brood size as reflected by an interaction between these effects on the probability of a nestling being fed (Table 1; Fig. 3a–c). Follow-up tests to tease apart this interaction revealed that parents actively biased food toward larger nestlings beyond what would be expected by chance when rearing broods with only a few young (effect of nestling mass on feeding frequency: estimate ± SE = 0.519 ± 0.155; F1, 61 = 11.27; P = 0.001; Fig. 3a), but parents expressed the opposite behavior, favoring runts when rearing relatively more young (estimate ± SE = –0.453 ± 0.220; F1, 55 = 4.23; P = 0.044; Fig. 3c).
Parental favoritism had consequences for the amount of mass nestlings gained, as the amount of feedings a nestling received during our observations positively affected their change in mass over this time (effect of feeding frequency on mass gained: estimate ± SE = 0.055 ± 0.019; F1, 203 = 8.06; P = 0.005). Thus, consistent with the feeding biases we observed (Fig. 3a–c), there was a similar interaction between brood size and initial size-differences among siblings in their effect on mass gained (Table 1; Fig. 3d–f). Specifically, within enlarged broods in which parents biased food toward runts (Fig. 3c), these runts gained more mass during our observations than their initially bigger siblings (estimate ± SE = − 0.197 ± 0.049; F1, 66 = 15.96; P < 0.001; Fig. 3f); on the other hand, initial size differences persisted within broods containing fewer young in which parents did not attempt to ameliorate the runts’ initial disadvantage (estimate ± SE = − 0.023 ± 0.040; F1, 66 = 0.33; P = 0.569; Fig. 3d). These changes in mass during our observations were also associated with nestling survival, as the average change in mass among nestlings at the brood level was positively correlated overall with the proportion of young surviving to fledge (estimate ± SE = 2.537 ± 1.049; F1, 59 = 5.84; P = 0.019). Finally, prior to fledging, nestlings that had received more food per begging solicitation were heavier and had longer, better-developed wing chords while controlling for their initial size differences (Table 2).
Discussion
Environmental conditions, including the social environment, early in life can often have a profound effect on fitness (Lindström 1999; Bowers et al. 2015, 2017; but see also Drummond and Ancona 2015). In altricial birds that depend upon parents for food at a young age, a particularly critical period of neonatal development with long-term consequences appears to involve a narrow window of time shortly after hatching. Indeed, parental provisioning of food to offspring at this time positively predicts whether or not offspring survive and reproduce as adults within local breeding populations (Schwagmeyer and Mock 2008; Bowers et al. 2014a), a result that is not unexpected given the critical window of time for offspring to maximize growth prior to encountering the energetic demands of endothermy and to obtain the nutritional resources they will need to survive outside the nest. It follows, then, that selection might favor overt solicitations from these offspring for parental food resources to enhance offspring survival and parents’ inclusive fitness.
We found that size differences between siblings within the nest prior to our observations significantly predicted begging during parental visits. Undersized runts begged for food more frequently during feeding trips, whereas their larger, presumably better-satiated siblings in better condition refrained from begging on ca. one-third of parental visits, on average (Fig. 2a). Such a result is consistent with the hypothesis that selfishness among older, dominant siblings might be tempered by the inclusive-fitness benefit of letting younger siblings obtain food instead (Parker et al. 1989; Forbes 2007; Romano et al. 2016; Roulin et al. 2016); at a proximate level, this abstaining from begging by larger siblings may simply be mediated by hunger (Glassey and Forbes 2002; Mock et al. 2011; Fresneau et al. 2018), but this does not negate the potential inclusive-fitness benefit of helping younger siblings stay alive. Although begging was negatively condition-dependent, parental responses to these begging signals clearly depended on nestling size, suggesting that (1) nestling begging may reflect a form of cooperation associated with feeding (Roulin 2002; Dreiss et al. 2010, 2015; Mock et al. 2011), but that parents ultimately determine who is fed and that (2) parents do not respond to begging merely for fast decision making.
Not unexpectedly, nestlings begging more than their siblings were fed more frequently, but although this relationship was relatively strong (Fig. 2b), it was noisy, and most nestlings received relatively little food given their begging rate, whereas ca. 10% of nestlings in the population received a prey item nearly every time they solicited food. Why should such a subset of nestlings be disproportionately more likely to be fed than their siblings? Future experiments manipulating age structure, nestling satiety, and condition will shed light on this. One potential explanation for this pattern, given the distribution of feedings we observed (Fig. 2b) is that parents discriminate among their young and make non-random feeding decisions. Parents provisioning larger-than-average broods appeared to follow the signal of need hypothesis, demonstrating a preference for undersized runts and feeding their young based on their level of need. This may be necessary with increasing brood sizes, as food will be spread over a relatively larger number of young, thereby reducing per-capita intake among nestlings and increasing the risk of starvation. On the other hand, parents of broods in which not all offspring were present discriminated against the runts and preferentially fed the larger siblings. These differences in feeding rate were not inconsequential, as they also predicted nestlings’ subsequent survival to fledging and pre-fledging mass and size, traits that generally predict the survival and recruitment of offspring as breeding adults in future years (Both et al. 1999; Clutton-Brock and Sheldon 2010; Wolfe et al. 2013; Bowers et al. 2014b, 2019a).
It must be noted that this study is an observational one, whereas inferences of causation require experimentation. For example, the patterns we report may be a response by parents to changes in brood size over the course of the nestling period (i.e., as nestlings are lost through brood reduction or partial nest destruction or depredation). On the other hand, these correlations might also be underlain by inherent differences in parental behavior, whereby a subset of parents adopt a signal-of-quality strategy from the outset of the breeding cycle, actively favoring the strongest, dominant siblings, and potentially even encouraging the mortality of the youngest, less-competitive nestlings. Indeed, even though our study is an observational one, it suggests that parental responses to the begging of any particular nestling vary with its size relative to siblings. Since nestling size changes rapidly with fluctuations in feeding and as the nestling stage progresses, parental learning and memory of feeding events may allow for behavioral plasticity in feeding decisions (Healy and Hurly 2004). Aside from remembering recent feeding trips, parental memory of the investment strategy that incurred the greatest benefit in previous broods can shape decisions for future broods. Additionally, parents may adopt one feeding strategy early in the nestling stage and later switch to a different strategy after learning what works best to ensure the survival of the young (Shizuka and Lyon 2012). The role of cognitive processes such as these in shaping parental investment decisions warrants further study, but, ultimately, the ability to adapt to changing nestling signals using phenotypic and/or memory cues should increase parental fitness.
Begging is likely not without costs (Kilner 2001; Moreno-Rueda 2007; Wright and Leonard 2002), thereby ensuring signal honesty and reliability. However, the exact interpretation of begging signals for parents remains unclear, with widely variable results across studies and species (Lotem 1998; Mock et al. 2011). Some degree of this variability is likely attributable to variation in ecological conditions and resource availability (Caro et al. 2016a; Koykka and Wild 2018), as territory quality is known to shape the investment strategies of breeding birds (Martin 1987), including the number, quality, and sex ratio of offspring (Janiszewski et al. 2013; Krist and Munclinger 2015; Krist et al. 2015; Bowers et al. 2016a, 2017; Poorboy et al. 2018). Such a situation may be especially likely to occur in birds, as ecological conditions are known to shape maternal hormone levels during the reproductive cycle, influencing hormone concentrations within egg yolks that shape subsequent variation in nestling begging, parental care, and offspring survival (Scwabl and Lipar 2002; Müller et al. 2007; Loiseau et al. 2008a; Bowers et al. 2016b, 2019b; Weber et al. 2018). Future manipulative experiments will shed further light on the interplay between maternal hormone deposition in eggs and intrafamilial conflict in shaping nestling learning early in life (e.g., when begging goes unrewarded; see also Kedar et al. 2000; Budden and Wright 2008; Grodzinski et al. 2008).
In conclusion, we found that larger siblings were generally less likely to beg than their smaller siblings during parental feeding trips. However, despite this reduced begging rate, these larger-than-average siblings received a disproportionate share of food in those nests with fewer-than-average young. On the other hand, the smaller-than-average nestlings were disproportionately fed in broods with a greater-than-average number of young. Collectively, these results suggest that parents respond to begging signals within a given breeding cycle according to their own assessment of how many copies of their genes might be passed on, a possibility that awaits testing in future experimental studies.
Data availability
Data are available as online supplementary material.
References
Barnett CA, Clairardin SG, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2011) Turning a deaf ear: a test of the manipulating androgens hypothesis in house wrens. Anim Behav 81:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.019
Barnett CA, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2012) Aggressiveness, boldness and parental food provisioning in male house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). Ethology 118:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02092.x
Barnett CA, Suzuki TN, Sakaluk SK, Thompson CF (2015) Mass-based condition measures and their relationship with fitness: in what condition is condition? J Zool 296:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12213
Blem CR, Blem LB, Barrientos CI (1999) Relationships of clutch size and hatching success to age of female prothonotary warblers. Wilson Bull 111:577–581
Both C, Visser ME, Verboven N (1999) Density-dependent recruitment rates in great tits: the importance of being heavier. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:465–469. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0660
Bowers EK, Sakaluk SK, Thompson CF (2011) Adaptive sex allocation in relation to hatching synchrony and offspring quality in house wrens. Am Nat 177:617–629. https://doi.org/10.1086/659630
Bowers EK, Nietz D, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2014a) Parental provisioning in house wrens: effects of varying brood size and consequences for offspring. Behav Ecol 25:1485–1493. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru153
Bowers EK, Hodges CJ, Forsman AM, Vogel LA, Masters BS, Johnson BGP, Johnson LS, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2014b) Neonatal body condition, immune responsiveness, and hematocrit predict longevity in a wild bird population. Ecology 95:3027–3034. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0418.1
Bowers EK, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2015) Persistent sex-by-environment effects on offspring fitness and sex-ratio adjustment in a wild bird population. J Anim Ecol 84:473–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12294
Bowers EK, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2016a) Within-female plasticity in sex-allocation is associated with a behavioural polyphenism in house wrens. J Evol Biol 29:602–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12810
Bowers EK, Bowden RM, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2016b) Elevated corticosterone during egg production elicits increased maternal investment and promotes nestling growth in a wild songbird. Horm Behav 83:6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.05.010
Bowers EK, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2017) Maternal natal environment and breeding territory predict the condition and sex ratio of offspring. Evol Biol 44:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-016-9380-9
Bowers EK, Jenkins JB, Mueller AJ, Miller KD, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2019a) Condition-dependent begging elicits increased parental investment in a wild bird population. Am Nat 193:725–737. https://doi.org/10.1086/702848
Bowers EK, Thompson CF, Bowden RM, Sakaluk SK (2019b) Post-hatching parental care and offspring growth vary with maternal corticosterone level in a wild bird population. Physiol Biochem Zool 92:496–504. https://doi.org/10.1086/705123
Branch CL, Pitera AM, Kozlovsky DY, Bridge ES, Pravosudov VV (2019) Smart is the new sexy: female mountain chickadees increase reproductive investment when mated to males with better spatial cognition. Ecol Lett 22:897–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13249
Budden AE, Wright J (2008) Effects of feeding frequency on nestling begging and digestion. Ibis 150:234–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00769.x
Capodeanu-Nägler A, Eggert A-K, Vogel H, Sakaluk SK, Steiger S (2018a) Species divergence in offspring begging and parental provisioning is linked to nutritional dependency. Behav Ecol 29:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx117
Capodeanu-Nägler A, Prang MA, Trumbo ST, Vogel H, Eggert A-K, Sakaluk SK, Steiger S (2018b) Offspring dependence on parental care and the role of parental transfer of oral fluids in burying beetles. Front Zool 15:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-018-0278-5
Caro SM, Griffin AS, Hinde CA, West SA (2016a) Unpredictable environments lead to the evolution of parental neglect in birds. Nat Commun 7:10985. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10985
Caro SM, West SA, Griffin AS (2016b) Sibling conflict and dishonest signaling in birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:13803–13808. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606378113
Clayton NS (1998) Memory and the hippocampus in food-storing birds: a comparative approach. Neuropharmacology 37:441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00037-9
Clutton-Brock T, Sheldon BC (2010) Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol 25:562–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.002
Cotton PA, Wright J, Kacelnik A (1999) Chick begging strategies in relation to brood hierarchies and hatching asynchrony. Am Nat 153:412–420. https://doi.org/10.1086/303178
Dor R, Lotem A (2010) Parental effort and response to nestling begging in the house sparrow: repeatability, heritability and parent-offspring co-evolution. J Evol Biol 23:1605–1612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02023.x
Dreiss A, Lahlah N, Roulin A (2010) How siblings adjust sib-sib communication and begging signals to each other. Anim Behav 80:1049–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.012
Dreiss AN, Ruppli CA, Faller C, Roulin A (2015) Social rules govern vocal competition in the barn owl. Anim Behav 102:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.12.021
Drummond H, Ancona S (2015) Observational field studies reveal wild birds responding to early-life stresses with resilience, plasticity, and intergenerational effects. Auk 132:563–576. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-14-244.1
Dugas MB (2009) House sparrow, Passer domesticus, parents preferentially feed nestlings with mouth colours that appear carotenoid-rich. Anim Behav 78:767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.009
Forbes S (2007) Sibling symbiosis in nestling birds. Auk 124:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/124.1.1
Forbes S (2011) Social rank governs the effective environment of siblings. Biol Lett 7:346–348. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.1064
Forbes S, Thornton S, Glassey B, Forbes M, Buckley NJ (1997) Why parent birds play favourites. Nature 390:351–352. https://doi.org/10.1038/37025
Forbes S, Grosshans R, Glassey B (2002) Multiple incentives for parental optimism and brood reduction in blackbirds. Ecology 83:2529–2541. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2529:MIFPOA]2.0.CO;2
Fresneau N, Iserbyt A, Lucass C, Müller W (2018) Size matters but hunger prevails—begging and provisioning rules in blue tit families. PeerJ 6:e5301. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5301
Glassey B, Forbes S (2002) Begging and asymmetric nestling competition. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation, and communication. Kluwer, New York, pp 269–281
Godfray HCJ (1991) Signalling of need by offspring to their parents. Nature 352:328–330. https://doi.org/10.1038/352328a0
Godfray HCJ (1995) Signaling of need between parents and young: parent-offspring conflict and sibling rivalry. Am Nat 146:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/285784
Godfray HCJ, Johnstone RA (2000) Begging and bleating: the evolution of parent-offspring signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1581–1591. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2000.0719
Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80088-8
Grodzinski U, Lotem A (2007) The adaptive value of parental responsiveness to nestling begging. Proc R Soc B 274:2449–2456. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0658
Grodzinski U, Erev I, Lotem A (2008) Can hungry nestlings be trained to reduce their begging? Behav Ecol 19:116–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm107
Grodzinski U, Dor R, Lotem A (2011) Begging for a better future: how far can behavioral ecologists go without specifying mechanisms? Behav Ecol 22:921–922. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr076
Healy SD, Hurly TA (2004) Spatial learning and memory in birds. Brain Behav Evol 63:211–220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076782
Hinde CA, Godfray HCJ (2011) Quality, need, or hunger; begging the question. Behav Ecol 22:1147–1148. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr117
Hinde CA, Buchanan KL, Kilner RM (2009) Prenatal environmental effects match offspring begging to parental provisioning. Proc R Soc B 276:2787–2794. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0375
Hodges CJ, Bowers EK, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2015) Cascading costs of reproduction in female house wrens induced to lay larger clutches. J Evol Biol 28:1383–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12662
Hoover JP, Robinson SK (2007) Retaliatory mafia behavior by a parasitic cowbird favors host acceptance of parasitic eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:4479–4483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609710104
Janiszewski T, Minias P, Wojciechowski Z (2013) Occupancy reliably reflects territory quality in a long-lived migratory bird, the white stork. J Zool 291:178–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12059
Johnstone RA, Kilner RM (2011) New labels for old whines. Behav Ecol 22:918–919. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr095
Kedar H, Rodríguez-Gironés M, Yedvab S, Winkler DW, Lotem A (2000) Experimental evidence for offspring learning in parent-offspring communication. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1723–1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1201
Kilner R (1995) When do canary parents respond to nestling signals of need? Proc R Soc Lond B 260:343–348. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1995.0102
Kilner RM (1997) Mouth colour is a reliable signal of need in begging canary nestlings. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:963–968. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0133
Kilner RM (2001) A growth cost of begging in captive canary chicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11394–11398. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191221798
Kilner RM, Johnstone RA (1997) Begging the question: are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of need? Trends Ecol Evol 12:11–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(96)10061-6
Kölliker M, Chuckalovcak JP, Haynes KF, Brodie ED III (2006) Maternal food provisioning in relation to condition-dependent offspring odours in burrower bugs (Sehirus cinctus). Proc R Soc B 273:1523–1528. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3475
Koykka C, Wild G (2018) The influence of environmental variance on the evolution of signaling behavior. Behav Ecol 29:814–820. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary072
Krist M, Munclinger P (2015) Context dependence of maternal effects: testing assumptions of optimal egg size, differential, and sex allocation models. Ecology 96:2726–2736. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2450.1
Krist M, Janča M, Edme A, Dzuro R (2015) Are prenatal maternal resources more important in competitive than in benign postnatal environments? Auk 132:577–583. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-14-236.1
Leonard M, Horn A (1996) Provisioning rules in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:341–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050250
Leonard ML, Horn AG (2001) Begging calls and parental feeding decisions in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:170–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000290
Leonard ML, Horn AG (2005) Ambient noise and the design of begging signals. Proc R Soc B 272:651–656. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3021
Li J, Wang Y, Lv L, Wang P, Hatchwell BJ, Zhang Z (2019) Context-dependent strategies of food allocation among offspring in a facultative cooperative breeder. Behav Ecol 30:975–985. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz037
Lindström J (1999) Early development and fitness in birds and mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 14:343–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01639-0
Loiseau C, Sorci G, Dano S, Chastel O (2008a) Effects of experimental increase of corticosterone levels on begging behavior, immunity and parental provisioning rate in house sparrows. Gen Comp Endocrinol 155:101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2007.03.004
Loiseau C, Fellous S, Haussy C, Chastel O, Sorci G (2008b) Condition-dependent effects of corticosterone on a carotenoid-based begging signal in house sparrows. Horm Behav 53:266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.10.006
Lotem A (1998) Differences in begging behaviour between barn swallow, Hirundo rustica, nestlings. Anim Behav 55:809–818. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1997.0675
Louder MIM, Schelsky WM, Albores AN, Hoover J (2015) A generalist brood parasite modifies use of a host in response to reproductive success. Proc R Soc B 282:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1615
MacLeod KJ, Brouwer L (2018) Social context-dependent provisioning rules in red-winged fairy-wrens do not vary with signals of increased chick need. Anim Behav 143:105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.07.010
Macnair MR, Parker GA (1979) Models of parent-offspring conflict III Intra-brood conflict. Anim Behav 27:1202–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(79)90067-8
Madden JR, Kunc H-JP, English S, Manser MB, Clutton-Brock TH (2009) Do meerkat (Suricata suricatta) pups exhibit strategic begging behaviour and so exploit adults that feed at relatively high rates? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0777-7
Manser MB, Madden JR, Kunc HP, English S, Clutton-Brock T (2008) Signals of need in a cooperatively breeding mammal with mobile offspring. Anim Behav 76:1805–1813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.027
Martin TE (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:453–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002321
Mattey SN, Richardson J, Ratz T, Smiseth PT (2018) Effects of offspring and parental inbreeding on parent-offspring communication. Am Nat 191:716–725. https://doi.org/10.1086/697236
McCleery RH, Pettifor RA, Armbruster P, Meyer K, Sheldon BC, Perrins CM (2004) Components of variance underlying fitness in a natural population of the great tit Parus major. Am Nat 164:E62–E72. https://doi.org/10.1086/422660
Mock DW, Forbes LS (1995) The evolution of parental optimism. Trends Ecol Evol 10:130–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89014-X
Mock DW, Parker GA (1997) The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mock DW, Schwagmeyer PL, Parker GA (2005) Male house sparrows deliver more food to experimentally subsidized offspring. Anim Behav 70:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.10.020
Mock DW, Dugas MB, Strickler SA (2011) Honest begging: expanding from signal of need. Behav Ecol 22:909–917. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr091
Moreno-Rueda G (2007) Is there empirical evidence for the cost of begging? J Ethol 25:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-006-0020-1
Mueller AJ, Miller KD, Bowers EK (2019a) Nest microclimate during incubation affects posthatching development and parental care in wild birds. Sci Rep 9:5161. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41690-4
Mueller AJ, Twedt DJ, Bowers EK (2019b) Rapid adoption of nestboxes by prothonotary warblers (Protonotaria citrea) in mesic deciduous forest. Can J Zool 97:1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2019-0059
Müller W, Lessells CM, Korsten P, von Engelhardt N (2007) Manipulative signals in family conflict? on the function of maternal yolk hormones in birds. Am Nat 169:E84–E96. https://doi.org/10.1086/511962
Parker GA, Mock DW, Lamey TC (1989) How selfish should stronger sibs be? Am Nat 133:846–868. https://doi.org/10.1086/284956
Parker GA, Royle NJ, Hartley IR (2002) Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:295–307. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0950
Petit LJ (1989) Breeding biology of prothonotary warblers in riverine habitat in Tennessee. Wilson Bull 101:51–61
Petit LJ (1999) Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), version 10. In: Poole AF, Gill FB (eds) The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.prowar.01
Pirrello S, Colombo E, Pilastro A, Pozzato M, Rubolini D, Saino N, Serra L, Romano A (2017) Skin and flange colour, but not ectoparasites, predict condition and survival in starling nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2292-6
Poorboy DM, Bowers EK, Sakaluk SK, Thompson CF (2018) Experimental cross-fostering of eggs reveals effects of territory quality on reproductive allocation. Behav Ecol 29:1190–1198. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary098
Price K, Ydenberg R (1995) Begging and provisioning in broods of asynchronously-hatched yellow-headed blackbird nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176718
Romano A, Bazzi G, Caprioli M, Corti M, Costanzo A, Rubolini D, Saino N (2016) Nestling sex and plumage color predict food allocation by barn swallow parents. Behav Ecol 27:1198–1205. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw040
Roulin A (2002) The sibling negotiation hypothesis. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation, and communication. Kluwer, New York, pp 107–126
Roulin A, Dreiss AN, Kölliker M (2010) Evolutionary perspective on the interplay between family life, and parent and offspring personality. Ethology 116:787–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01793.x
Roulin A, Des Monstiers B, Ifrid E, Da Silva A, Genzoni E, Dreiss AN (2016) Reciprocal preening and food sharing in colour-polymorphic nestling barn owls. J Evol Biol 29:380–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12793
Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Parker GA (2002) Begging for control: when are offspring solicitation behaviours honest? Trends Ecol Evol 17:434–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02565-X
Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) (2012) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Saino N, Ninni P, Incagli M, Calza S, Sacchi R, Møller AP (2000a) Begging and parental care in relation to offspring need and condition in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Am Nat 156:637–649. https://doi.org/10.1086/316996
Saino N, Ninni P, Calza S, Martinelli R, De Bernardi F, Møller AP (2000b) Better red than dead: carotenoid-based mouth coloration reveals infection in barn swallow nestlings. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:57–61. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.0966
Sakaluk SK, Wilson AJ, Bowers EK, Johnson LS, Masters BS, Johnson BGP, Vogel LA, Forsman AM, Thompson CF (2014) Genetic and environmental variation in condition, cutaneous immunity, and haematocrit in house wrens. BMC Evol Biol 14:242. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0242-8
Salwiczek LH, Watanabe A, Clayton NS (2010) Ten years of research into avian models of episodic-like memory and its implications for developmental and comparative cognition. Behav Brain Res 215:221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2010.06.011
Schwabl H, Lipar J (2002) Hormonal regulation of begging behaviour. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation, and communication. Kluwer, New York, pp 221–244
Schwagmeyer PL, Mock DW (2008) Parental provisioning and offspring fitness: size matters. Anim Behav 75:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.023
Shizuka D, Lyon BE (2012) Family dynamics through time: brood reduction followed by parental compensation with aggression and favouritism. Ecol Lett 16:315–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12040
Slevin MC, Matthews AE, Boves TJ (2018) Prothonotary warbler demography and nest site selection in natural and artificial cavities in bottomland forests of Arkansas, USA. Avian Conserv Ecol 13:5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01235-130205
Smiseth PT, Ward RJS, Moore AJ (2007) Parents influence asymmetric sibling competition: experimental evidence with partially dependent young. Ecology 88:3174–3182. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1992.1
Smiseth PT, Scott MP, Andrews C (2011) Hormonal regulation of offspring begging and mediation of parent-offspring conflict. Anim Behav 81:507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.11.029
Smith CC, Fretwell SD (1974) The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am Nat 108:499–506. https://doi.org/10.1086/282929
Smith HG, Montgomerie R (1991) Nestling American robins compete with siblings by begging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:307–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163989
Számadó S (2011) The cost of honesty and the fallacy of the handicap principle. Anim Behav 81:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.022
Tonra CT, Hallworth MT, Boves TJ, Reese J, Bulluck LP, Johnson M, Viverette C, Percy K, Ames EM, Matthews A et al (2019) Concentration of a widespread breeding population in a few critically important nonbreeding areas: migratory connectivity in the prothonotary warbler. Condor Ornithol Appl 121:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duz019
Trivers RL (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool 14:249–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.249
Twedt DJ, Henne-Kerr JL (2001) Artificial cavities enhance breeding bird densities in managed cottonwood forests. Wildl Soc Bull 29:680–687
Watanabe A (2018) Exploring the bird mind: a review of episodic memory and metacognition studies of western scrub-jays. Jpn J Anim Psych 68:57–65. https://doi.org/10.2502/janip.68.1.4
Weber BM, Bowers EK, Terrell KA, Falcone JF, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2018) Pre- and postnatal effects of experimentally manipulated maternal corticosterone on growth, stress reactivity, and survival of nestling house wrens. Funct Ecol 32:1995–2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13126
Wells JCK (2003) Parent-offspring conflict theory, signaling of need, and weight gain in early life. Q Rev Biol 78:169–202. https://doi.org/10.1086/374952
Wiebe KL, Slagsvold T (2009) Mouth coloration in nestling birds: increasing detection or signaling quality? Anim Behav 78:1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.09.013
Wiebe KL, Slagsvold T (2012) Parents take both size and conspicuousness into account when feeding nestlings in dark cavity nests. Anim Behav 84:1307–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.014
Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690. https://doi.org/10.1086/282461
Williams TD (2012) Physiological adaptations for breeding in birds. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wolfe JD, Johnson MD, Ralph CJ (2013) Greater mass increases annual survival of prothonotary warblers wintering in northeastern Costa Rica. Condor 115:163–167. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2012.120084
Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) (2002) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation, and communication. Kluwer, New York
Wright J (2011) Honest begging: signals of need, quality, and/or hunger? Behav Ecol 22:920–921. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr080
Youtz J, Miller KD, Bowers EK, Rogers SL, Bulluck LP, Johnson M, Peer BD, Percy KL, Johnson EI, Ames EM, Tonra CM, Boves TJ (2020) Bergmann’s rule is followed at multiple stages of postembryonic development in a long-distance migratory songbird. Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7758
Acknowledgements
We thank the Edward J. Meeman Biological Station for use of the field site, the Center for Biodiversity Research at the University of Memphis and Anna Bess Sorin at St. Mary’s Episcopal School for logistical support, and Kazuhiro Goto and an anonymous reviewer for providing helpful comments that improved the manuscript.
Funding
Funding was provided by the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Memphis and a student-research grant from the Tennessee Ornithological Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MB and EKB designed research; all authors collected data in the field and MB collected data in the laboratory; MB and EKB analyzed data; MB wrote the first draft of the manuscript; and all authors contributed to revisions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
All activities followed guidelines provided by ABS/ASAB, with approval from (1) the Institutional Animal Care Committee of the University of Memphis, (2) the United States Geological Survey, and (3) the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.
Consent for publication
All persons entitled to authorship are so named and consented to publication of this work.
Code availability
Available upon request to the corresponding author.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brode, M., Miller, K.D., Atkins Coleman, A.J. et al. Parental favoritism in a wild bird population. Anim Cogn 24, 677–687 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01463-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01463-3