Letter | Published:

Parental care and mating behaviour of polyandrous dunnocks Prunella modularis related to paternity by DNA fingerprinting

Nature volume 338, pages 249251 (16 March 1989) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

INDIVIDUALS are often assumed to behave so as to maximize their reproductive success1 but unambiguous determination of parentage is difficult, especially in species with complex social systems where a female may mate with several males and where there may also be intraspecific brood parasitism2,4. Even in apparently monogamous species, extra-pair paternity can be common5,7. DNA fingerprinting8,11 promises to revolutionize field studies by providing a powerful method for determining paternity and maternity12. Here we use this technique to link observations of mating behaviour and parental care with precise measurements of reproductive success. We show that in the dunnock Prunella modularis, a small passerine bird with a variable mating system13,14, males do not discriminate between their own young and those of another male in multiply-sired broods. Nevertheless, they increase their own reproductive success by feeding offspring in relation to their access to the female during the mating period, which is a good predictor of paternity.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Clutton-Brock, T. H. (ed.) Reproductive Success. (Chicago University Press, 1988).

  2. 2.

    Helping and Communal Breeding in Birds: Ecology and Evolution. (Princeton University Press, 1987).

  3. 3.

    & Behavl Ecol. Sociobiol. 20, 153–160 (1987).

  4. 4.

    & Population Ecology of the Cooperatively Breeding Acorn Woodpecker, (Princeton University Press, 1987).

  5. 5.

    & Behavl Ecol. Sociobiol. 22, 413–420 (1988).

  6. 6.

    Anim. Behav. 35, 877–886 (1987).

  7. 7.

    & Behavl Ecol. Sociobiol. 15, 91–95 (1984).

  8. 8.

    , & Nature 314, 67–73 (1985).

  9. 9.

    & Nature 327, 149–152 (1987).

  10. 10.

    , , & Nature 327, 147–149 (1987).

  11. 11.

    Trends Ecol. Evol. (in the press).

  12. 12.

    I.M.A. J. math. appl. Med. Biol. (in the press).

  13. 13.

    & J. Yamashina Inst. Ornith. 14, 281–292 (1982).

  14. 14.

    & J. anim. Ecol. 53, 895–912 (1984).

  15. 15.

    Nature 302, 334–336 (1983).

  16. 16.

    Anim. Behav. 33, 628–648 (1985).

  17. 17.

    , , , & Am. J. hum. Genet. 39, 11–24 (1986).

  18. 18.

    , & Nature 316, 76–79 (1985).

  19. 19.

    , , & , Nature 332, 278–281 (1988).

  20. 20.

    , & Nature 317, 818–819 (1985).

  21. 21.

    Nature 322, 290–291 (1986).

  22. 22.

    J. anim. Ecol. 55, 123–138 (1986).

  23. 23.

    & J. anim. Ecol. 55, 139–154 (1986).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Leicester, Leicester, LEI 7RH, UK

    • T. Burke
    •  & M. W. Bruford
  2. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK

    • N. B. Davies
    •  & B. J. Hatchwell

Authors

  1. Search for T. Burke in:

  2. Search for N. B. Davies in:

  3. Search for M. W. Bruford in:

  4. Search for B. J. Hatchwell in:

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/338249a0

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.