Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Parent-Offspring Conflict in Budgerigars

Stamps, Judy, Clark, Anne, Arrowood, Pat, Kus, Barbara·1985·Behaviour

Abstract

Despite widespread theoretical interest in genetic conflict between parents and offspring, there is little empirical evidence that it exists in nature. Theoretical models suggest two outcomes of conflict not predicted by alternate theories: (1) offspring that control the allocation of parental investment might show escalated demand behaviours (e.g., begging) and demand more resources than they could efficiently use and (2) parents might evolve behavioural counterstrategies which prevented offspring from obtaining extra resources, but which were more costly than a "laissez-faire" parental strategy allowing offspring control. These predictions were tested in budgerigars, (Melopsittacus undulatus) in large flight cages at Davis, California. Budgerigar clutches hatch extremely asynchronously, yet all nestlings grew at similar rates and fledged at similar sizes and ages. This independence of hatch order and performance seemed due primarily to the mother budgerigar's allofeeding strategy: females allofed offspring mainly on the basis of size, and only secondarily attended to begging rate. Offspring of a given age and size were treated the same by their mothers regardless of hatch order, and offspring undersized for their age were fed as if they were younger. In contrast, male budgerigars attended to offspring begging rates. Males tended to initiate feeding bouts when offspring begged, and to allofeed vigorous beggers more often. Variance in male allofeeding behaviour allowed comparisons of size-matched families in which females performed nearly all of the allofeeds to nestlings (= female-fed families) with families in which males and females both allofed nestlings (= male-aided families). The parent controlled the allocation of food in female-fed families, while offspring had greater control over food allocation in male-fed families. As was predicted by conflict theory, the female counterstrategy was effective but potentially costly: the food delivery rate of females was only half as fast as males'. Conversely, offspring control resulted in an escalation of beg rate for the same degree of need (as measured by size and growth), and male-aided offspring obtained nearly three times more regurgitations than female-fed nestlings, yet grew at comparable rates and fledged at comparable sizes and ages. Hence, offspring demanded and obtained more food than they could effectively use. Other avian parents also seem to use effective but potentially costly counterstrategies, and other avian offspring may demand more food than they require. Even if initial hatch asynchronies functioned in brood reduction, the parental strategies described here would allow parents to retain control over the timing and conditions for offspring loss.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/156853985x00253

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Stamps, J., Clark, A., Arrowood, P., & Kus, B.
Venue
Behaviour
Published
1985
Volume
94
Issue
1-2
Pages
1-39
ISSN
  • 0005-7959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1568-539X
OpenAlex
W2011192544
Cited by
227
References
0
FWCI
10.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Parent-Offspring Conflict in Budgerigars. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1163/156853985x00253
The paper
Stamps, J., Clark, A., Arrowood, P., & Kus, B. (1985). Parent-Offspring Conflict in Budgerigars. Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853985x00253

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.