| Literature DB >> 21818393 |
Andrea Romano1, Diego Rubolini, Manuela Caprioli, Giuseppe Boncoraglio, Roberto Ambrosini, Nicola Saino.
Abstract
Parent-offspring conflicts lead the offspring to evolve reliable signals of individual quality, including parasite burden, which may allow parents to adaptively modulate investment in the progeny. Sex-related variation in offspring reproductive value, however, may entail differential investment in sons and daughters. Here, we experimentally manipulated offspring condition in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) by subjecting nestlings to an immune challenge (injection with bacterial lipopolysaccharide, LPS) that simulates a bacterial infection, and assessed the effects on growth, feather quality, expression of morphological (gape coloration) and behavioral (posture) begging displays involved in parent-offspring communication, as well as on food allocation by parents. Compared to sham-injected controls, LPS-treated chicks suffered a depression of body mass and a reduction of palate color saturation. In addition, LPS treatment resulted in lower feather quality, with an increase in the occurrence of fault bars on wing feathers. The color of beak flanges, feather growth and the intensity of postural begging were affected by LPS treatment only in females, suggesting that chicks of either sex are differently susceptible to the immune challenge. However, irrespective of the effects of LPS, parents equally allocated food among control and challenged offspring both under normal food provisioning and after a short period of food deprivation of the chicks. These results indicate that bacterial infection and the associated immune response entail different costs to offspring of either sex, but a decrease in nestling conditions does not affect parental care allocation, possibly because the barn swallow adopts a brood-survival strategy. Finally, we showed that physiological stress induced by pathogens impairs plumage quality, a previously neglected major negative impact of bacterial infection which could severely affect fitness, particularly among long-distance migratory birds.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21818393 PMCID: PMC3144944 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022805
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Effect of LPS on body mass and feather length on day 2 and 3 post-injection.
| Source of variation | Coefficient | χ2 | df | P |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Treatment | −0.492 (0.087) | 29.25 | 1 | <0.0001 |
| Sex | 0.089 (0.103) | 0.74 | 1 | 0.388 |
|
| ||||
| Treatment | −0.684 (0.321) | 4.59 | 1 | 0.032 |
| Sex | −0.647 (0.342) | 1.90 | 1 | 0.168 |
| Treatment×sex | −1.090 (0.444) | 6.07 | 1 | 0.014 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Treatment | −0.251 (0.114) | 4.83 | 1 | 0.028 |
| Sex | 0.053 (0.133) | 0.16 | 1 | 0.691 |
|
| ||||
| Treatment | −0.244 (0.247) | 0.99 | 1 | 0.320 |
| Sex | 0.216 (0.278) | 0.62 | 1 | 0.430 |
Final models reporting the effect of treatment (LPS or control), sex and their interaction (where significant) on body mass and third primary feather length of nestlings both two and three days after the experimental manipulation. The number of nestlings in the sample is given in parentheses. See Statistical Methods for details.
Figure 1Body mass on day 2 and 3 after LPS injection.
Model-estimated (see Table 1) mean body mass (+ SE) of LPS and control nestlings 2 (left) or 3 (right) days after the immune challenge.
Figure 2Feather length of males and females on day 2 and 3 after LPS injection.
Model-estimated (see Table 1) mean third primary feather length of male and female nestlings belonging to the LPS or control group 2 (A) and 3 (B) days after the immune challenge.
Figure 3Frequency and number of fault bars on feathers in relation to LPS treatment.
Proportion (+ SE) of individuals with fault bars (left) and mean number of fault bars (right) on the wings feathers of LPS (n = 75) and control (n = 73) chicks. Standard errors were calculated using the Wilson's score method incorporating continuity correction.
Effect of LPS on intensity of postural begging, number of feedings received and body mass gain during feeding trials.
| Source of variation | Coefficient | χ2 | df | P |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Sex | −0.092 (0.153) | 0.362 | 1 | 0.548 |
| Treatment | 0.236 (0.107) | 4.570 | 1 | 0.033 |
| Food deprivation | 0.184 (0.087) | 4.436 | 1 | 0.035 |
|
| ||||
| Sex | −0.256 (1.332) | 0.054 | 1 | 0.816 |
| Treatment | 0.050 (0.590) | 0.007 | 1 | 0.935 |
| Food deprivation | 4.965 (0.633) | 47.995 | 1 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||
| Sex | 0.097 (0.119) | 0.676 | 1 | 0.411 |
| Treatment | 0.008 (0.047) | 0.029 | 1 | 0.865 |
| Food deprivation | 0.537 (0.064) | 52.694 | 1 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Treatment | 0.123 (0.142) | 0.765 | 1 | 0.382 |
| Food deprivation | 0.286 (0.120) | 5.367 | 1 | 0.021 |
|
| ||||
| Treatment | −0.376 (0.925) | 0.172 | 1 | 0.678 |
| Food deprivation | 5.495 (0.977) | 24.632 | 1 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||
| Treatment | 0.008 (0.075) | 0.011 | 1 | 0.915 |
| Food deprivation | 0.494 (0.090) | 29.162 | 1 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Treatment | 0.366 (0.161) | 4.939 | 1 | 0.026 |
| Food deprivation | 0.082 (0.122) | 0.466 | 1 | 0.495 |
|
| ||||
| Treatment | 0.937 (0.619) | 1.959 | 1 | 0.162 |
| Food deprivation | 4.334 (0.757) | 29.168 | 1 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||
| Treatment | 0.010 (0.053) | 0.037 | 1 | 0.847 |
| Food deprivation | 0.059 (0.090) | 29.733 | 1 | <0.0001 |
Final models reporting the effect of treatment and food deprivation on postural begging, feedings received by individual offspring and body mass variation of nestlings in a repeated-measures linear mixed model. The analyses were performed for the entire set of nestlings, and for each sex separately. The number of nestlings in the sample is given in parentheses. See Statistical Methods for details.
Figure 4Begging intensity before and after food deprivation in relation to LPS treatment.
Model-estimated (see Table 2) mean intensity (+ SE) of postural begging display in 21 dyads of female (A) and 24 dyads of male (B) nestlings, before and after a period of 2 hours of food deprivation.