LAUSR

ABSTRACT Parental care is assumed to be costly in that it requires sustained, high-intensity activity sufficient to cause costs of reproduction (decreased survival and future fecundity of parents). Costs of reproduction are, in turn, thought to have a physiological basis where intense activity causes a decrease in parental condition. However, attempts to identify the physiological basis of costs of reproduction have produced mixed results. Here, I argue that in birds, the central idea that parental care represents sustained, high-intensity work might be incorrect. Specifically: (a) the duration of intense activity associated with chick-rearing might be quite limited; (b) flight, the most obvious sustained, high-intensity activity, might only represent a small component of an individual's overall activity budget; (c) some (high-quality) individuals might be able to tolerate costs of intense activity, either owing to their physiological state or because they have access to more resources, without perturbation of physiological homeostasis; and (d) individuals might utilise other mechanisms to modulate costs of activity, for example, mass loss, again avoiding more substantial physiological costs. Furthermore, I highlight the important fact that life-history theory predicts that reproductive trade-offs should only be expected under food stress. Most birds breed in spring and early summer precisely because of seasonal increases in food abundance, and so it is unclear how often parents are food stressed. Consequently, I argue that there are many reasons why costs of reproduction, and any physiological signature of these costs, might be quite rare, both temporally (in different years) and among individuals. Summary: Contrary to expectation, parental care might not involve sustained, high-intensity activity; that is, it might not be ‘hard work’ and, consequently, costs of reproduction and physiological signatures of costs might rarely be experienced.