| Literature DB >> 28480002 |
Shannon Whelan1, Dan Strickland2, Julie Morand-Ferron1, D Ryan Norris3.
Abstract
Timing of reproduction can influence individual fitness whereby early breeders tend to have higher reproductive success than late breeders. However, the fitness consequences of timing of breeding may also be influenced by environmental conditions after the commencement of breeding. We tested whether ambient temperatures during the incubation and early nestling periods modulated the effect of laying date on brood size and dominant juvenile survival in gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis), a sedentary boreal species whose late winter nesting depends, in part, on caches of perishable food. Previous evidence has suggested that warmer temperatures degrade the quality of these food hoards, and we asked whether warmer ambient temperatures during the incubation and early nestling periods would be associated with smaller brood sizes and lower summer survival of dominant juveniles. We used 38 years of data from a range-edge population of gray jays in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, where the population has declined over 50% since the study began. Consistent with the "hoard-rot" hypothesis, we found that cold temperatures during incubation were associated with larger brood sizes in later breeding attempts, but temperatures had little effect on brood size for females breeding early in the season. This is the first evidence that laying date and temperature during incubation interactively influence brood size in any bird species. We did not find evidence that ambient temperatures during the incubation period or early part of the nestling period influenced summer survival of dominant juveniles. Our findings provide evidence that warming temperatures are associated with some aspects of reduced reproductive performance in a species that is reliant on cold temperatures to store perishable food caches, some of which are later consumed during the reproductive period.Entities:
Keywords: brood size; brooding; corvid; food storage; phenology; timing of breeding
Year: 2017 PMID: 28480002 PMCID: PMC5415522 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Female gray jay incubating during winter in Algonquin Provincial Park, ON. Photo credit: Brett Forsyth
Results of AICC model comparisons, modeling brood size in response to multiple fixed predictors and random effects of year and female identity. All models included in the model selection are shown (N = 175 females, 597 nest records, 38 years)
| Model | Fixed effect terms | AICC | ∆AICC
|
| ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Relative laying date + incubation temperature + female age + food supplementation + relative laying date × incubation temperature | 1996.8 | 0 | 0.927 | |
| 2 | Relative laying date + incubation temperature + female age + food supplementation | 2003.2 | 6.41 | 0.038 | 24.4 |
| 3 | Relative laying date + nestling period temperature + female age + food supplementation + relative laying date × nestling period temperature | 2004.8 | 8.00 | 0.017 | 54.5 |
| 4 | Relative laying date + nestling period temperature + female age + food supplementation | 2005.8 | 9.01 | 0.010 | 92.7 |
| 5 | Relative laying date + female age + food supplementation | 2006.3 | 9.56 | 0.008 | 115.9 |
Difference between AICC value of top‐ranked model and given model.
Akaike weight.
Evidence ratio.
Figure 2Relative laying date and mean ambient temperature during incubation had an interactive effect on brood size. Model predictions are derived from the top model from AIC model selection presented in Table 1. We generated model estimates at three discrete temperatures to visualize the interaction between two continuous fixed effects (cold = −6.2°C, moderate = −1.0°C, and warm = 5.2°C). Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals
Results of AICC model comparisons, modeling summer survival of a dominant juvenile in response to multiple fixed predictors and random effects of year and female identity. All models included in the model selection are shown (N = 174 females, 589 nest records, 38 years)
| Model | Fixed effect terms | AICC | ∆AICC
|
| ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Relative laying date + female age + food supplementation | 723.9 | 0 | 0.435 | |
| 2 | Relative laying date + nestling period temperature + female age + food supplementation | 725.0 | 1.11 | 0.250 | 1.74 |
| 3 | Relative laying date + incubation temperature + female age + food supplementation | 726.0 | 2.05 | 0.156 | 2.79 |
| 4 | Relative laying date + nestling period temperature + female age + food supplementation + relative laying date × nestling period temperature | 726.8 | 2.89 | 0.102 | 4.26 |
| 5 | Relative laying date + incubation temperature + female age + food supplementation + relative laying date × incubation temperature | 728.0 | 4.08 | 0.056 | 7.77 |
Difference between AICC value of top‐ranked model and given model.
Akaike weight.
Evidence ratio.
Parameter estimates for top model for brood size (model 1, Table 1) and full model averaged parameter estimates for summer survival of a dominant juvenile (AICC < 2: models 1 and 2, Table 2). Levels of “food supplementation” were as follows: low (reference category), M, medium; H, high (see methods for details). We report 95% confidence intervals
| Term | Brood size | Dominant juvenile survival (Y/N) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate ± SE | 2.5% CI | 97.5% CI | Estimate ± SE | 2.5% CI | 97.5% CI | |
| Intercept | 0.67 ± 0.061 | 0.55 | 0.79 | −0.48 ± 0.17 | −0.81 | −0.15 |
| Relative laying date | −0.18 ± 0.049 | −0.28 | −0.084 | −0.45 ± 0.13 | −0.70 | −0.20 |
| Ambient incubation temperature | −0.15 ± 0.051 | −0.25 | −0.050 | – | – | – |
| Ambient nestling period temperature | – | – | – | −0.046 ± 0.10 | −0.24 | 0.15 |
| Female age | 0.056 ± 0.031 | −0.0048 | 0.12 | −0.0084 ± 0.095 | −0.19 | 0.18 |
| Food supplementation | ||||||
| M | −0.063 ± 0.076 | −0.21 | 0.086 | −0.28 ± 0.22 | −0.71 | 0.15 |
| H | −0.15 ± 0.083 | −0.31 | 0.013 | −0.79 ± 0.26 | −1.30 | −0.28 |
| Relative laying date × ambient incubation temperature | −0.087 ± 0.031 | −0.15 | −0.026 | – | – | – |