| Literature DB >> 30250681 |
Jesús Gómez1, Cristina Ramo1, Martin Stevens2, Gustavo Liñán-Cembrano3, Miguel A Rendón1, Jolyon T Troscianko2, Juan A Amat1.
Abstract
Solar radiation is an important driver of animal coloration, not only because of the effects of coloration on body temperature but also because coloration may protect from the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Indeed, dark coloration may protect from UV, but may increase the risk of overheating. In addition, the effect of coloration on thermoregulation should change with egg size, as smaller eggs have higher surface-volume ratios and greater convective coefficients than larger eggs, so that small eggs can dissipate heat quickly. We tested whether the reflectance of eggshells, egg spottiness, and egg size of the ground-nesting Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus is affected by maximum ambient temperature and solar radiation at breeding sites. We measured reflectance, both in the UV and human visible spectrum, spottiness, and egg size in photographs from a museum collection of plover eggshells. Eggshells of lower reflectance (darker) were found at higher latitudes. However, in southern localities where solar radiation is very high, eggshells are also of dark coloration. Eggshell coloration had no significant relationship with ambient temperature. Spotiness was site-specific. Small eggs tended to be light-colored. Thermal constraints may drive the observed spatial variation in eggshell coloration, which may be lighter in lower latitudes to diminish the risk of overheating as a result of higher levels of solar radiation. However, in southern localities with very high levels of UV radiation, eggshells are of dark coloration likely to protect embryos from more intense UV radiation. Egg size exhibited variation in relation to coloration, likely through the effect of surface area-to-volume ratios on overheating and cooling rates of eggs. Therefore, differential effects of solar radiation on functions of coloration and size of eggshells may shape latitudinal variations in egg appearance in the Kentish plover.Entities:
Keywords: Charadrius alexandrinus; UV protection; biogeographical pattern; biophysical mechanisms; egg coloration; egg size; latitudinal gradient
Year: 2018 PMID: 30250681 PMCID: PMC6144973 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4335
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Female Kentish plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) beside its nest (photo credit: Xavier Ferrer)
Figure 2(a) Map showing the spatial distribution of collection sites for eggs of Kentish plover. Symbol size is proportional to sample size. (b) Relationships between latitude and both solar radiation and temperature in the localities where the eggs were collected
Pearson's correlation coefficients between variables describing eggshell reflectance, for both background (B) and spots (S), in the visible (VIS) and ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, and spot patterning (number, size, and area) in the Kentish plover
| B‐VIS | B‐UV | S‐UV | S‐number | S‐size | S‐area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S‐VIS | 0.79 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 0.12 ns | −0.39 | −0.59 |
| B‐VIS | 0.90 | 0.74 | 0.22 | −0.49 | −0.66 | |
| B‐UV | 0.77 | 0.21 | −0.45 | −0.60 | ||
| S‐UV | 0.17 ns | −0.40 | −0.55 | |||
| S‐number | −0.88 | −0.43 | ||||
| S‐size | 0.81 |
ns, nonsignificant.
*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Biplot of the two‐first principal components for the variables used to describe both eggshell (S, spots, B, background) color in the human visible (VIS) and ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, and spot pattern (size, area, and number) in the Kentish plover
Results of the spatio‐temporal GAMMs fitted to eggshell reflectance (PC1) and spot patterning (PC2)
| Dependent variable | Fixed effects |
| AICc | ∆AICc |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | Year + s (latitude) | 6 | 450.59 | 2.24 | 0.206 | – | – |
| Year + latitude | 5 | 448.35 | 0.00 | 0.632 | 0.24 | 0.39 | |
| Latitude | 4 | 453.16 | 4.81 | 0.057 | 0.18 | 0.39 | |
| Year | 4 | 452.00 | 3.61 | 0.104 | 0.17 | 0.37 | |
| Null model | 3 | 464.12 | 16.12 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.37 | |
| PC2 | Year + s (latitude) | 6 | 361.12 | 4.24 | 0.061 | – | – |
| Year + latitude | 5 | 358.88 | 2.00 | 0.167 | 0.03 | 0.27 | |
| Latitude | 4 | 358.68 | 1.80 | 0.168 | 0.01 | 0.27 | |
| Year | 4 | 358.11 | 1.22 | 0.223 | 0.01 | 0.27 | |
| Null model | 3 | 356.89 | 0.00 | 0.381 | 0.00 | 0.27 |
Parametric coefficients for latitude were estimated when the degrees of freedom for the spline estimates (s) equals 1. Collection site was entered as an intercept‐only random effect in both models. The difference between the lowest AIC and the AICc score of each model (ΔAICc), the Akaike weight (w i), the variance explained by the fixed factors ( ), and the variance explained by the entire model ( ) are presented.
Figure 4(a) Partial plots (95% CI) of GAMMs for the relationships between latitude and eggshell reflectance (PC1). (b) Spot patterning (PC2). Only the significant environmental variables were included in each model
Results of the environmental GAMMs fitted to eggshell reflectance (PC1) and spot patterning (PC2)
| Model |
| AICc | ∆AICc |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | ||||||
| Year + sv + s (insolation) + s (temperature) | 9 | 451.83 | 22.85 | 0.000 | – | – |
| Year + s (insolation) + s (temperature) | 8 | 452.36 | 23. 38 | 0.000 | – | – |
| Sv + s (insolation) + s (temperature) | 8 | 449.81 | 20.83 | 0.000 | – | – |
| Year + sv + s (insolation) | 7 | 447.14 | 18.16 | 0.000 | – | – |
| Year + sv + s (temperature) | 7 | 447.81 | 18.83 | 0.000 | – | – |
| Year + sv + insolation3 | 8 | 442.02 | 13.04 | 0.001 | 0.34 | 0.47 |
| Year + sv + insolation4 | 9 | 428.98 | 0.00 | 0.998 | 0.45 | 0.48 |
| Null model | 3 | 464.12 | 35.14 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.37 |
| PC2 | ||||||
| s (insolation) + s (temperature) | 7 | 363.76 | 6.88 | 0.014 | – | – |
| s (insolation) | 5 | 360.06 | 3.18 | 0.089 | – | – |
| s (temperature) | 5 | 361.23 | 4.35 | 0.049 | – | – |
| Insolation | 4 | 357.87 | 0. 98 | 0.266 | 0.02 | 0.26 |
| Temperature | 4 | 359.04 | 2. 15 | 0.148 | 0.00 | 0.27 |
| Null model | 3 | 356.89 | 0.00 | 0.434 | 0.00 | 0.27 |
Parametric linear effects were applied for surface/volume (sv) of eggs and collection year. Smoothing spline functions (s) were used both for temperature and solar radiation, then linear and polynomial (cubic and quartic) models were also fitted. Collection site was entered as a random effect in both models.
ΔAICc, the difference between the lowest AICc and the AICc score of each model; w i, Akaike weight; , marginal R 2; , conditional R 2.
Figure 5Partial plots (95% CI) of a four‐order polynomial model for the relationships between solar radiation and eggshell color (PC1). Only the significant environmental variables were included in each model. Rug plot represents the spread of the data