Parental care and clutch sizes in North and South American birds

Science

Volumn 287, Issue 5457, 2000, Pages 1482-1485

  Martin, Thomas E ^a   Martin, P R ^a   Olson, C R ^a   Heidinger, B J ^a   Fontaine, J J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRD; CLUTCH SIZE; EVOLUTION; PARENTAL CARE; TEMPORAL VARIATION;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARGENTINA; ARTICLE; BIRD; EVOLUTION; NONHUMAN; NORTH AMERICA; PARENTAL BEHAVIOR; POPULATION; PREDATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUTH AMERICA;

ANIMALS; ARGENTINA; ARIZONA; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHY; MALE; MATERNAL BEHAVIOR; NORTH AMERICA; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; PHYLOGENY; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; SONGBIRDS; SOUTH AMERICA;

NORTH AMERICA; SOUTH AMERICA;

ANIMALIA; AVES;

EID: 0034712036     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5457.1482     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. T. E. Martin, Curr. Ornithol. 9, 163 (1992).
2. D. Lack, Ibis 90, 25 (1948); The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers (Clarendon, Oxford, 1954); Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds (Methuen, London, 1968); D. A. Roff, Evolution of Life Histories (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1992).
3. D. Lack, Ibis 90, 25 (1948); The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers (Clarendon, Oxford, 1954); Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds (Methuen, London, 1968); D. A. Roff, Evolution of Life Histories (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1992).
4. D. Lack, Ibis 90, 25 (1948); The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers (Clarendon, Oxford, 1954); Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds (Methuen, London, 1968); D. A. Roff, Evolution of Life Histories (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1992).
5. D. Lack, Ibis 90, 25 (1948); The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers (Clarendon, Oxford, 1954); Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds (Methuen, London, 1968); D. A. Roff, Evolution of Life Histories (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1992).
6. T. Slagsvold, Oecologia 54, 159 (1982); T. E. Martin, Ecol. Monogr. 65, 101 (1995); T. E. Martin and J. Clobert, Am. Nat. 147, 1028 (1996).
7. T. Slagsvold, Oecologia 54, 159 (1982); T. E. Martin, Ecol. Monogr. 65, 101 (1995); T. E. Martin and J. Clobert, Am. Nat. 147, 1028 (1996).
8. T. Slagsvold, Oecologia 54, 159 (1982); T. E. Martin, Ecol. Monogr. 65, 101 (1995); T. E. Martin and J. Clobert, Am. Nat. 147, 1028 (1996).
9. For data in the tropics, see Skutch (5, 11, 17); D. W. Snow, J. Ornithol. 119, 227 (1978); G. Kulesza, Ibis 132, 407 (1990); and S. Sargent, Wilson Bull. 105, 285 (1993). For data in the Southern Hemisphere, see G. L. MacLean, Cimbebasia 2, 163 (1974); D. Robinson, Emu 90, 40 (1990); and R. E. Major, Emu 91, 236 (1991).
10. For data in the tropics, see Skutch (5, 11, 17); D. W. Snow, J. Ornithol. 119, 227 (1978); G. Kulesza, Ibis 132, 407 (1990); and S. Sargent, Wilson Bull. 105, 285 (1993). For data in the Southern Hemisphere, see G. L. MacLean, Cimbebasia 2, 163 (1974); D. Robinson, Emu 90, 40 (1990); and R. E. Major, Emu 91, 236 (1991).
11. For data in the tropics, see Skutch (5, 11, 17); D. W. Snow, J. Ornithol. 119, 227 (1978); G. Kulesza, Ibis 132, 407 (1990); and S. Sargent, Wilson Bull. 105, 285 (1993). For data in the Southern Hemisphere, see G. L. MacLean, Cimbebasia 2, 163 (1974); D. Robinson, Emu 90, 40 (1990); and R. E. Major, Emu 91, 236 (1991).
12. For data in the tropics, see Skutch (5, 11, 17); D. W. Snow, J. Ornithol. 119, 227 (1978); G. Kulesza, Ibis 132, 407 (1990); and S. Sargent, Wilson Bull. 105, 285 (1993). For data in the Southern Hemisphere, see G. L. MacLean, Cimbebasia 2, 163 (1974); D. Robinson, Emu 90, 40 (1990); and R. E. Major, Emu 91, 236 (1991).
13. For data in the tropics, see Skutch (5, 11, 17); D. W. Snow, J. Ornithol. 119, 227 (1978); G. Kulesza, Ibis 132, 407 (1990); and S. Sargent, Wilson Bull. 105, 285 (1993). For data in the Southern Hemisphere, see G. L. MacLean, Cimbebasia 2, 163 (1974); D. Robinson, Emu 90, 40 (1990); and R. E. Major, Emu 91, 236 (1991).
14. For data in the tropics, see Skutch (5, 11, 17); D. W. Snow, J. Ornithol. 119, 227 (1978); G. Kulesza, Ibis 132, 407 (1990); and S. Sargent, Wilson Bull. 105, 285 (1993). For data in the Southern Hemisphere, see G. L. MacLean, Cimbebasia 2, 163 (1974); D. Robinson, Emu 90, 40 (1990); and R. E. Major, Emu 91, 236 (1991).
15. A. F. Skutch, Ibis 91, 430 (1949).
16. T. H. Clutton-Brock, The Evolution of Parental Care (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1991).
17. I. Rowley and E. Russell, in Bird Population Studies: Relevance to Conservation and Management, C. M. Perrins, J.-D. Lebreton, G. J, M. Hirons, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1991), pp. 22-44.
18. T. E. Martin, J. Avian Biol. 27, 263 (1996).
19. The Arizona site was at 34°N in high-elevation (2500 m) mixed conifer forests. This site is in the center of an extensive tract of forest with minimal human impact and containing large predators, including black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, and foxes [T. E. Martin, Ecology 79, 653 (1998)]. The Argentina site was at 26°S in the center of El Rey National Park, a large park that contained large predators, including all large cats such as jaguars, mountain lions, and ocelots. The presence of large predators is important because their loss can allow increases in mesopredators that can increase nest predation rates (19).
20. Nests were located using parental behavior and checked every 1 to 4 days to determine the fate of clutches and whether parents were successful in fledging at least one young or failed because of predation or other causes, following the method of T. E. Martin and C. R. Geupel [J. Field Ornithol. 64, 507 (1993)].
21. A. F. Skutch, Ornithol. Monogr. 36, 575 (1985).
22. P. Harvey and M. D. Pagel, The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1991).
23. Incubation was used for this test, because parents and young do not make noise during this period, allowing clear tests of the influence of parental activity. During the nestling period, the begging noise of young could influence predation rates independently of parental activity [D. Haskell, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 257, 161 (1994); J. Briskie, P. R. Martin, T. E. Martin, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 266, 2153 (1999)].
24. Incubation was used for this test, because parents and young do not make noise during this period, allowing clear tests of the influence of parental activity. During the nestling period, the begging noise of young could influence predation rates independently of parental activity [D. Haskell, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 257, 161 (1994); J. Briskie, P. R. Martin, T. E. Martin, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 266, 2153 (1999)].
25. J. J. Roper and R. R. Goldstein, J. Avian Biol. 28, 111 (1997).
26. T. E. Martin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85, 2586 (1988); Nature 380, 338 (1996).
27. T. E. Martin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85, 2586 (1988); Nature 380, 338 (1996).
28. H.A. Ford, Emu 99, 91 (1991); R. E. Major et al., Oikos 69, 364 (1994); L. N. H. Taylor and H. A. Ford, Wildl. Res. 25, 587 (1998).
29. H.A. Ford, Emu 99, 91 (1991); R. E. Major et al., Oikos 69, 364 (1994); L. N. H. Taylor and H. A. Ford, Wildl. Res. 25, 587 (1998).
30. H.A. Ford, Emu 99, 91 (1991); R. E. Major et al., Oikos 69, 364 (1994); L. N. H. Taylor and H. A. Ford, Wildl. Res. 25, 587 (1998).
31. A. F. Skutch, Pacific Coast Avifauna no. 34 (1960); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 7 (1967); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 10 (1972); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 19 (1981).
32. A. F. Skutch, Pacific Coast Avifauna no. 34 (1960); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 7 (1967); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 10 (1972); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 19 (1981).
33. A. F. Skutch, Pacific Coast Avifauna no. 34 (1960); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 7 (1967); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 10 (1972); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 19 (1981).
34. A. F. Skutch, Pacific Coast Avifauna no. 34 (1960); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 7 (1967); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 10 (1972); Publ. Nuttall Ornithol. Club no. 19 (1981).
35. T. B. Oatley, Ostrich 53, 206 (1982); R. A. Noske, Emu 91, 73 (1991); I. Rowley, M. Brooker, E. Russell, Emu 91, 197 (1991); A. Dyrcz, Emu 94, 17 (1994).
36. T. B. Oatley, Ostrich 53, 206 (1982); R. A. Noske, Emu 91, 73 (1991); I. Rowley, M. Brooker, E. Russell, Emu 91, 197 (1991); A. Dyrcz, Emu 94, 17 (1994).
37. T. B. Oatley, Ostrich 53, 206 (1982); R. A. Noske, Emu 91, 73 (1991); I. Rowley, M. Brooker, E. Russell, Emu 91, 197 (1991); A. Dyrcz, Emu 94, 17 (1994).
38. T. B. Oatley, Ostrich 53, 206 (1982); R. A. Noske, Emu 91, 73 (1991); I. Rowley, M. Brooker, E. Russell, Emu 91, 197 (1991); A. Dyrcz, Emu 94, 17 (1994).
39. Y. Oniki, Biotropica 11, 60 (1979); J. P. Gibbs, Oikos 60, 155 (1993); J. Terborgh, Ecology 78, 1494 (1997).
40. Y. Oniki, Biotropica 11, 60 (1979); J. P. Gibbs, Oikos 60, 155 (1993); J. Terborgh, Ecology 78, 1494 (1997).
41. Y. Oniki, Biotropica 11, 60 (1979); J. P. Gibbs, Oikos 60, 155 (1993); J. Terborgh, Ecology 78, 1494 (1997).
42. N. P. Ashmole, Ibis 103, 458 (1963); M. L. Cody, Evolution 20, 174 (1966); J. C. Z. Woinarski, Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 14, 159 (1985); Y. Yom Tov, Ibis 136, 131 (1994).
43. N. P. Ashmole, Ibis 103, 458 (1963); M. L. Cody, Evolution 20, 174 (1966); J. C. Z. Woinarski, Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 14, 159 (1985); Y. Yom Tov, Ibis 136, 131 (1994).
44. N. P. Ashmole, Ibis 103, 458 (1963); M. L. Cody, Evolution 20, 174 (1966); J. C. Z. Woinarski, Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 14, 159 (1985); Y. Yom Tov, Ibis 136, 131 (1994).
45. N. P. Ashmole, Ibis 103, 458 (1963); M. L. Cody, Evolution 20, 174 (1966); J. C. Z. Woinarski, Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 14, 159 (1985); Y. Yom Tov, Ibis 136, 131 (1994).
46. R. E. Ricklefs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89, 4722 (1992).
47. T. E. Martin and C. K. Chalambor, Am. Nat. 153, 131 (1999).
48. A. P. M̌ller and T. R. Birkhead, Evolution 48, 1089 (1994).
49. A. Purvis and A. Rambaut, Comp. Appl. Biosci. 11, 247 (1995); T. E. Martin and J. Clobert, Am. Nat. 147, 1028 (1996).
50. A. Purvis and A. Rambaut, Comp. Appl. Biosci. 11, 247 (1995); T. E. Martin and J. Clobert, Am. Nat. 147, 1028 (1996).
51. From 1993 to 1998, birds were videotaped during both incubation and nestling periods with video cameras for the first 6 hours of the day, beginning 0.5 hours before sunrise, as described in (22). This protocol standardized both time of day and sampling duration. All video recordings during the nestling period were made within 1 to 2 days of the time when primary feathers broke their sheaths to control for stage of development. The number of trips per hour was averaged over the 6 hours of monitoring for each nest (22).
52. This study was designed to allow paired comparisons of traits between latitudes (Figs. 1 and 4) using paired sample t tests. Paired comparisons are a strong way to compare between latitudes because they can control (or both phylogeny and ecology (Table 1). Paired comparisons use contrasts between extant species that do not require estimates of branch lengths and make no assumptions about modes of character evolution (12, 23). When phylogenetic paths cross, the average for nodes that do not cross is used (24). As a result, the two Basileuterus species are averaged and compared to the average of the two Vermivora species for all paired comparisons, yielding six paired comparisons.
53. Visitation rates were quantified as described in (25). The number of trips per hour was calculated for each nest and then averaged across all nests within a species to obtain the mean for each species. A minimum of six nests (6 hours each) was used (22), but many more nests were sampled per species in most cases.
54. Daily predation rates represent the probability per day that a nest is depredated [G. L Hensler and J. D. Nichols, Wilson Bull. 93, 42 (1981)]. Only species with n > 20 nests were used.
55. Relationships among species were examined while controlling for phylogeny by means of independent contrasts (3, 12). Controlling for phylogeny is important because behaviors may be similar in closely related species (12). A phylogeny was constructed using recent phylogenetic information (3). We calculated linear contrasts for each node in the phylogeny using the Comparative Analysis by Independent Contrast program [A. Purvis and A. Rambaut, Comp. Appl. Biosci. 11, 247 (1995)]. These independent contrasts were used to examine correlations that were forced through the origin (12).
56. Food loading was measured as the size of visible food in the bills of parents arriving at the nest of nestlings that had broken their primary feather sheaths within 1 to 2 days. A small (4 cm) remote telephoto camera lens (MicroVideo) was placed within 1 m of nests to allow high-resolution closeup video images and measurement of food loading. The load size was estimated by measuring bill size and using it to calibrate the area of digital video images of load size obtained from video footage using GRABITII. Area was used to estimate load size.
57. Hole-nesting species typically have lower predation rates and larger clutches than do open-nesting birds (3). Five species in Argentina that nested in holes or in complex protected nests (Piculus rubiginosus, Synallaxis superciliosa, Syndactyla rufosuperciliata, Trogolodytes aedon, and Troglodytes solstitialis) had daily predation rates from 0 to 0.018 (x̄ = 0.0066 ± 0.003), which is much lower than rates for the open-nesting species (Fig. 3B). However, we lacked clutch size data for three of these species.
58. We thank C. Ghalambor, J. McKay, J. Tewksbury, K. Marchetti, T. Price, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments; many field assistants for their help in collecting the field data; the Arizona Game and Fish Agency and Coconino and Apache-Sit-greaves National Forests for their logistical support of the Arizona work; and the Laboratorio de Investigaciones Ecologicas de las Yungas, M. Rouges, P. Marconi, and El Rey National Park staff for logistical support of the Argentina work. Supported by grants from NSF (DEB-9527318, DEB-9707598, and DEB-9900343), the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, and the International Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.