| Literature DB >> 26134270 |
Kevin K Clausen1, Jesper Madsen1, Ingunn M Tombre2.
Abstract
Environmental conditions at one point of the annual cycle of migratory species may lead to cross-seasonal effects affecting fitness in subsequent seasons. Based on a long-term mark-resighting dataset and scoring of body condition in an arctic breeding goose species, we demonstrate a substantial effect of winter harshness on post-winter body condition. However, this effect was compensated along the spring migration corridor, and did not persist long enough to influence future reproduction. This highlights the importance of temporal scale when assessing impacts of environmental effects, and suggests a state-dependent physiological mechanism adjusting energy accumulation according to internal energy stores carried into spring. In support of these findings, the development of body condition was unaffected by whether geese used supplementary feeding sites or not. While there was no effect of winter harshness on the average population pre-breeding body condition, individual variations in early spring body condition (probably related to different life-histories) were partly traceable throughout spring. This strongly indicates a carry-over effect on the individual level, possibly related to differences in dominance, site use, disturbance or migration strategy, which may potentially affect future reproduction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26134270 PMCID: PMC4489791 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132312
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Relationship between average winter temperature and March body condition of pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus.
Average March body condition was assessed from the abdominal profile index (API) of (a) females and (b) males. Lines indicate least square fits from the linear mixed model (Table 1), and bars indicate standard errors. N indicates the number of geese included in the analysis.
Fixed effects output of the general linear mixed model to explain temporal persistence of the winter carry-over effect on pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus body condition at three consecutive spring staging sites (Denmark, Trøndelag and Vesterålen).
Presented estimates are coefficients from a model with API (abdominal profile index) as response variable, “Year” and “Bird ID” as random effects and “Day of Month”, “Winter temperature” and the interaction between these as fixed effects. Winter temperature is the average December-February temperature (°C) in the preceding winter, and N the number of geese (females & males) with abdominal profile index (API) assessments for all combinations of month and staging sites. Day of month was fitted as a continuous variable (covariate).
| Females | Males | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denmark | Estimate | SE | P value | Estimate | SE | P value |
| March (N = 1314 & 1525) | ||||||
| Day of month | 0.031 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.029 | 0.002 | <0.001 |
| Winter temperature | 0.127 | 0.056 | 0.039 | 0.147 | 0.052 | 0.013 |
| Day of month x Winter temperature | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.392 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.741 |
| April (N = 3591 & 3845) | ||||||
| Day of month | 0.069 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.054 | 0.001 | <0.001 |
| Winter temperature | 0.102 | 0.046 | 0.048 | 0.128 | 0.052 | 0.026 |
| Day of month x Winter temperature | -0.001 | 0.001 | 0.397 | -0.000 | 0.001 | 0.985 |
| May (N = 911 & 985) | ||||||
| Day of month | 0.044 | 0.007 | <0.001 | 0.019 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Winter temperature | 0.095 | 0.080 | 0.268 | 0.088 | 0.133 | 0.527 |
| Day of month x Winter temperature | -0.008 | 0.003 | 0.015 | -0.005 | 0.003 | 0.055 |
|
| ||||||
| April (N = 707 & 655) | ||||||
| Day of month | 0.062 | 0.007 | <0.001 | 0.062 | 0.006 | <0.001 |
| Winter temperature | 0.030 | 0.076 | 0.707 | 0.022 | 0.085 | 0.807 |
| Day of month x Winter temperature | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.133 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.146 |
| May (N = 1573 & 1622) | ||||||
| Day of month | 0.059 | 0.004 | <0.001 | 0.031 | 0.004 | <0.001 |
| Winter temperature | -0.002 | 0.072 | 0.974 | -0.043 | 0.088 | 0.644 |
| Day of month x Winter temperature | -0.013 | 0.002 | <0.001 | -0.015 | 0.002 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| May (N = 3018 & 3102) | ||||||
| Day of month | 0.069 | 0.004 | <0.001 | 0.053 | 0.004 | <0.001 |
| Winter temperature | 0.080 | 0.125 | 0.532 | 0.073 | 0.140 | 0.611 |
| Day of month x Winter temperature | -0.011 | 0.003 | <0.001 | -0.016 | 0.003 | <0.001 |
* Significant effects on α-level 0.05
Fig 2Relationship between early (March) and late (May) spring body condition of pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus.
Average body condition was assessed from the abdominal profile index (API) of (a) females and (b) males. Black lines indicate the linear fit with 95% confidence limits, and grey dashed lines indicate hypothetical fits corresponding to no compensation (slope = 1) and full compensation (slope = 0). N indicates the number of geese included in the analysis.
Fixed effects model output of the general linear model to explain the effect of supplementary feeding on April API of pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus.
Presented estimates are coefficients from a model with “Year” and “Bird ID” as random effects and “Day of month”, “Sex”, “Supplementary feeding”, “Sex * Supplementary feeding” and “Year * Supplementary feeding” as fixed effects. The supplementary feeding variable distinguishes between birds with API assessments inside and outside areas with supplementary feeding, and N indicates the number of geese included in the analysis. Day of month and Year was fitted as continuous variables (covariates).
| N = 6947 | Estimate | SE | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day of month | 0.060 | 0.001 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 0.146 | 0.021 | <0.001 |
| Supplementary feeding | 0.001 | 0.012 | 0.939 |
| Sex | -0.017 | 0.012 | 0.146 |
| Year | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.444 |
* Significant effects on α-level 0.05