Trade-offs in avian parental care: a review of theory and meta-analysis of brood size manipulations.
The selective forces shaping parental care have been studied for over 50 years. While theoretical and experimental work has yielded qualitative progress, the large body of empirical work testing predictions about parental investment based on life-history trade-offs has yet to be synthesized. We first provide an overview of the core life-history theory exploring how selection might shape parental care. We then conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies that experimentally manipulated brood size in birds, a widely used experimental approach to manipulate parental investment. We extracted 313 estimates from 62 studies representing 31 species of birds from 19 different families and tested key predictions on trade-offs in parental care derived from theory. Our analysis provides strong support for some predictions about life-history trade-offs in parental care, but weak or equivocal support for others. Specifically, we found that overall, avian parents respond to brood size manipulations as predicted by life-history theory: they increased care in response to brood enlargement, and decreased care in response to brood reductions. Furthermore, for the same relative manipulation size, responses to brood reductions were greater than responses to brood enlargements. This finding is consistent with predictions derived from life-history theory based on some types of non-linear utility curves. However, many predictions derived from theory are not well supported by our comparative analysis. Species' life-history traits such as clutch size (a measure of current reproduction), adult survival, and broods per year (two measures of future reproduction), explained little, if any, among-species variation in response to brood size manipulations. Several factors may explain this. We highlight that brood size manipulations may affect more than just perception of the value of current reproduction, such as altering parents' perception of predation risk. Importantly, these unintended consequences could lead to asymmetric responses like those we observed. Other common experimental approaches - such as hormone manipulations, altering a partner's effort, and food supplementation - often affect multiple traits or fitness components simultaneously, or may involve cues that poorly match the evolved mechanisms guiding parental behaviour. Our review of both theory and experimental approaches suggests that there are multiple opportunities for more precise experiments. We offer several recommendations for effective designs. One is improved understanding of the biology underlying the functions relating to costs and benefits, with careful consideration of not only how the manipulation will affect only one of those, but also the mechanisms that might alter how parents perceive the manipulation. We also emphasize general principles, such as assessing alternative hypotheses and devising multiple independent tests. Armed with these recommendations, we believe there are new opportunities to increase the strength of inference achieved from studies aimed at understanding the trade-offs affecting the evolution of parental care.