| Literature DB >> 34944231 |
Joanna Rosenbeger1, Kamil Pytlak1, Ewa Łukaszewicz1, Artur Kowalczyk1.
Abstract
Despite numerous studies, intra-species variation in bird eggs is still not well explained. In the presented studies, we investigated the possible sources of this variation: female factor, laying order, and season, using the following traits of Capercaillie eggs as an example: egg size and shape, eggshell lightness, and thickness. Samples were collected for three years from three Capercaillie breeding centres located in different parts of Poland, where birds are kept in conditions close to their natural habitat and have a similar diet. The obtained results showed no significant impact of laying order on egg size, shape, pigmentation, nor eggshell thickness. This indicates that the provided nutrition ensures an adequate supply of minerals for the entire laying period. Most results did not show statistically significant differences between eggs from different breeding centres, but in one breeding centre, eggshells had lighter pigmentation. We assume the observed differences may result from females' individual features or local environmental conditions. Egg traits were highly consistent for individual females, proving that visual identification can be useful in identifying the eggs of different females.Entities:
Keywords: capercaillie; eggs; eggshell; intra-species variation; laying order; pigmentation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34944231 PMCID: PMC8697993 DOI: 10.3390/ani11123454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Variation in eggshells lightness [L*] over the following seasons (2018, 2019, 2020) for the same females. K-W means performed test was Kruskall–Wallis, T performed test was t-test. The number of eggs (n) was given for each L*.
| Female ID | Season/Year | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L * in 2018 | L * in 2019 | L * in 2020 | ||
| 6 red | 69.768 ( | 67.043 ( | 72.1 ( | 0.9832 (K-W) |
| 2 green | * | 72.944 ( | 73.8 ( | 0.296 (T) |
| * | 1.19 | 2.471 | ||
| 8 blue | * | 69.63 ( | 69.735 ( | 0.467 (T) |
| * | 1.758 | 2.084 | ||
| 25 green | 68.439 ( | * | 66.5 ( | 0.157 (T) |
| 2.19 | * | 2.798 | ||
| 56 | 71.062 ( | 72.639 ( | * | 0.053 (T) |
| 1.202 | 1.691 | * | ||
| 73 | * | 67.692 ( | 67.86 ( | 0.449 (T) |
| * | 2.189 | 1.434 | ||
| 60 | * | 64.31( | 67.701 ( | 0.058 (T) |
| * | 2.796 | 2.382 | ||
| 23 | 74.236 ( | * | 70.938 ( | 0.07 (T) |
| 2.579 | * | 3.631 | ||
*—no samples obtained from female in year.
Figure 1Coefficient of variation for egg length, width, egg shape index and mean eggshell thickness for particular females in the year 2018. The compared unfertilized eggs are marked in blue, the post-hatched eggshells are marked in green.
The length, width, shape, and eggshell lightness of Capercaillie eggs collected from Wisła Forestry (WF) (n = 59) and Leżajsk Forestry (LF) (n = 61).
| Measured Trait | Average | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egg length (mm) | WF 55.421 | WF 2.749 | WF 49.330 | WF 61.260 |
| LF 56.766 | LF 2.892 | LF 44.660 | LF 62.230 | |
| Egg width (mm) | WF 41.286 | WF 1.059 | WF 38.790 | WF 44.300 |
| LF 41.281 | LF 0.960 | LF 36.430 | LF 43.130 | |
| Egg shape | WF 1.342 | WF 0.049 | WF 1.255 | WF 1.444 |
| LF 1.375 | LF 0.068 | LF 1.226 | LF 1.536 | |
| Eggshell lightness | WF 70.364 | WF 4.357 | WF 57.573 | WF 79.760 |
| LF 70.166 | LF 4.302 | LF 54.523 | LF 78.997 |