Brooding behaviour in the cooperatively breeding Bell Miner (Manorina melanophrys)
Gabrielle A. Archard A B F , Raleigh J. Robertson C , David Jones C , Jodie Painter A D , Ross Crozier A E and Michael F. Clarke AA Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic. 3086, Australia.
B School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, LL57 2UW, UK.
C Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.
D Division of Population Biology, University of Helsinki, 00014, Finland.
E School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: G.Archard@bristol.ac.uk
Emu 106(2) 105-112 https://doi.org/10.1071/MU05032
Submitted: 28 June 2005 Accepted: 27 February 2006 Published: 19 May 2006
Abstract
Brooding of nestlings in cooperatively breeding bird species may be disrupted by the attendance of helpers at the nest. We studied the factors that influence brooding in the cooperatively breeding honeyeater, the Bell Miner (Manorina melanophrys), and how nest attendants interacted with the bird brooding at the nest. Only the breeding female brooded nestlings, despite helpers assisting with many other aspects of the care of nestlings. The number of bouts of brooding by the female per hour was dependent upon the age and number of nestlings, ambient air temperature, and the number of Bell Miners visiting the nest. Behaviours performed by the female differed significantly between brooding and non-brooding visits. These findings are consistent with earlier studies of species with simpler biparental care. However, the complexity of meeting the nutritional and thermoregulatory requirements of nestlings in a cooperatively breeding species is demonstrated by changes in the behaviour of nest attendants when females were brooding, and by the different responses of females to different nest attendants. Nest attendants delayed visiting the nest when the female was brooding. However, if an attendant did visit the nest while the female was brooding, she was more likely to stop brooding and allow nestlings to be fed if the attendant was the breeding male, rather than a helper, irrespective of whether or not the attendants were close relatives of the nestlings.
Acknowledgments
We thank everybody who assisted in collecting behavioural data, including Robyn Astley, Floyd Connor, Fiona Coote, John Ewen, Leigh Ford, Belinda Lees, Paul Martin, Susan Maxwell, Emma Moysey, Kristen Munro, Lois Robertson, Natasha Schedvin and Tamsin Ward-Smith. We are grateful to the Zoological Parks and Gardens Board of Victoria and the Wurundjeri People for permission to work on their property. This research was supported by a Leverhulme Study Abroad Studentship to GAA, NSERC grants to RJR and MFC, and ARC grants to MFC. It was conducted in accordance with a colour-banding permit from the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme, Animal Experimentation and Ethics permits from La Trobe University and the Zoological Parks and Gardens Board of Victoria, and research permits from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Balshine-Earn, S. , Nest, F. C. , Reid, H. , and Taborsky, M. (1998). Paying to stay or paying to breed? Field evidence for direct benefits of helping behaviour in a cooperatively breeding fish. Behavioral Ecology 9, 432–438.
Chastel, O. , and Kersten, M. (2002). Brood size and body condition in the House Sparrow Passer domesticus: the influence of brooding behaviour. Ibis 144, 284–292.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kokko, H. , Johnstone, R. A. , and Wright, W. (2002). The evolution of parental and alloparental effort in cooperatively breeding groups: when should helpers pay to stay? Behavioral Ecology 13, 291–300.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |