Is biparental defence driven by territory protection, offspring protection or both?

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68081766%3A_____%2F21%3A00543133" target="_blank" >RIV/68081766:_____/21:00543133 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347221000907?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347221000907?via%3Dihub</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.03.012" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.03.012</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Is biparental defence driven by territory protection, offspring protection or both?

Original language description

In many animal systems, the defence of a territory or nest coincides with the defence of offspring, and it is often unclear whether the defence behaviour exists for the purpose of offspring protection, territory protection or a combination of both. In species with biparental care, the drivers of defence behaviours in males may differ from those in females, particularly if there are sex-specific fitness benefits from the current brood or territory. In this study, we present field experiments aimed at elucidating sex differences in the drivers behind nest defence in a fish species (Variabilichromis moorii, Cichlidae) with biparental care. High rates of cuckoldry in this species create asymmetries in brood value between mates, suggesting that increased brood survival may be a weaker driver of male than of female defence effort. We conducted parent and offspring removal experiments and found that following the removal of their mates, single males lost significantly more fry than single females. Some single males lost their territories, while others constricted their space use, suggesting that experimental divorce decreased their success in territory defence. Removal of fry from territories guarded by both parents caused the defence behaviour to become more male biased, that is, males contributed relatively more to defence without any fry present. Our results suggest that, relative to that of females, male defence behaviour is more strongly driven by territory retention than by brood protection. Nevertheless, the presence of males improves parents & rsquo, abilities to keep territory intruders at bay, and thus probably confers benefits to broods. We conclude that the drivers of defence behaviours differ between the sexes in this species, with defence behaviours aligning well with the traditional definition of parental care for females, but less so for males.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

10613 - Zoology

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2021

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Animal Behaviour

ISSN

0003-3472

e-ISSN

1095-8282

Volume of the periodical

176

Issue of the periodical within the volume

June

Country of publishing house

GB - UNITED KINGDOM

Number of pages

14

Pages from-to

43-56

UT code for WoS article

000655320000004

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-85104649493