Skip to main content
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):241–250. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0923

The evolution of avian parental care.

Nancy Tyler Burley 1, Kristine Johnson 1
PMCID: PMC1692953  PMID: 11958693

Abstract

A stage model traces key behavioural tactics and life-history traits that are involved in the transition from promiscuity with no parental care, the mating system that typifies reptiles, to that typical of most birds, social monogamy with biparental care. In stage I, females assumed increasing parental investment in precocial young, female choice of mates increased, female-biased mating dispersal evolved and population sex ratios became male biased. In stage II, consortships between mating partners allowed males to attract rare social mates, provided a mechanism for paternity assessment and increased female ability to assess mate quality. In stage III, relative female scarcity enabled females to demand parental investment contributions from males having some paternity certainty. This innovation was facilitated by the nature of avian parental care; i.e. most care-giving activities can be adopted in small units. Moreover, the initial cost of care giving to males was small compared with its benefit to females. Males, however, tended to decline to assume non-partitionable, risky, or relatively costly parental activities. In stage IV, altriciality coevolved with increasing biparental care, resulting in social monogamy. Approaches for testing behavioural hypotheses are suggested.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (231.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Emlen S. T., Oring L. W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 1977 Jul 15;197(4300):215–223. doi: 10.1126/science.327542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Feduccia A. Explosive evolution in tertiary birds and mammals. Science. 1995 Feb 3;267(5198):637–638. doi: 10.1126/science.267.5198.637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Geist NR, Jones TD. Juvenile Skeletal Structure and the Reproductive Habits of Dinosaurs. Science. 1996 May 3;272(5262):712–714. doi: 10.1126/science.272.5262.712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hamilton W. D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384–387. doi: 10.1126/science.7123238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hedges S. B., Parker P. H., Sibley C. G., Kumar S. Continental breakup and the ordinal diversification of birds and mammals. Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):226–229. doi: 10.1038/381226a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hedges S. B., Poling L. L. A molecular phylogeny of reptiles. Science. 1999 Feb 12;283(5404):998–1001. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5404.998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mindell D. P., Sorenson M. D., Dimcheff D. E., Hasegawa M., Ast J. C., Yuri T. Interordinal relationships of birds and other reptiles based on whole mitochondrial genomes. Syst Biol. 1999 Mar;48(1):138–152. doi: 10.1080/106351599260490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Neff B. D., Gross M. R. Dynamic adjustment of parental care in response to perceived paternity. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Aug 7;268(1476):1559–1565. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  10. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  11. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  12. Reynolds John D., Goodwin Nicholas B., Freckleton Robert P. Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):269–281. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ruben J. The evolution of endothermy in mammals and birds: from physiology to fossils. Annu Rev Physiol. 1995;57:69–95. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ph.57.030195.000441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Shine R. Propagule size and parental care: the "safe harbor" hypothesis. J Theor Biol. 1978 Dec 21;75(4):417–424. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90353-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tullberg Birgitta S., Ah-King Malin, Temrin Hans. Phylogenetic reconstruction of parental-care systems in the ancestors of birds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):251–257. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. van Tuinen M., Sibley C. G., Hedges S. B. The early history of modern birds inferred from DNA sequences of nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal genes. Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Mar;17(3):451–457. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES