Abstract
The matching habitat choice hypothesis holds that individuals with different phenotypes actively select the habitats to which they are best adapted, hence maximizing fitness. Despite the potential implications of matching habitat choice for many ecological and evolutionary processes, very few studies have tested its predictions. Here, we use a 26-year dataset on a spatially structured population of pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) to test whether phenotype-dependent dispersal and habitat selection translate into increased fitness, as measured by recruitment success. In our study system, males at the extremes of the body size range segregate into deciduous and coniferous forests through nonrandom dispersal. According to the matching habitat choice hypothesis, fitness of large-sized males is expected to be higher in the deciduous habitat, where they preferentially settle to breed, while the reverse would be true for small-sized males, which are more frequent in the coniferous forest. Our results showed that recruitment success in the coniferous forest increased non-linearly with body size, with males at the middle of the size range having higher fitness than both large and small-sized males. However, no clear trend was observed in the deciduous forest where males of either size had similar fitness. After empirically discarding other important processes potentially confounding matching habitat choice, as genotype- and body condition-dependent dispersal, competitive exclusion remains the most likely force shaping the nonrandom distribution of male pied flycatchers. A conclusive demonstration of the operation and occurrence of matching habitat choice in nature remains therefore to be done.
References
Ahnesjö J, Forsman A (2006) Differential habitat selection by pygmy grasshopper color morphs; interactive effects of temperature and predator avoidance. Evol Ecol 20:235–257
Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Ulfstrand S (1985) Habitat selection in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. In: Cody M (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, London, pp 59–83
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear Mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R Package Version 0.999375-42
Bélichon S, Clobert J, Massot M (1996) Are there differences in fitness components between philopatric and dispersing individuals? Acta Oecol 17:503–517
Blondel J, Dias PC, Perret P, Maistre M, Lambrechts MM (1999) Selection-based biodiversity at a small spatial scale in a low-dispersing insular bird. Science 285:1399–1402
Bolnick DI, Otto SP (2013) The magnitude of local adaptation under genotype-dependent dispersal. Ecol Evol 3:4722–4735
Bolnick DI, Snowberg LK, Patenia C, Stutz WE, Ingram T, Lau OL (2009) Phenotype-dependent native habitat preference facilitates divergence between parapatric lake and stream stickleback. Evolution 63:2004–2016
Brown CR, Brown MB, Brazeal KR (2008) Familiarity with breeding habitat improves daily survival in colonial cliff swallows. Anim Behav 76:1201–1210
Burger C, Both C (2011) Translocation as a novel approach to study effects of a new breeding habitat on reproductive output in wild birds. PLoS ONE 6(3):e18143
Camacho C (2013) Behavioural thermoregulation in man-made habitats: surface choice and mortality risk in red-necked nightjars. Bird Study 60:124–130
Camacho C, Canal D, Potti J (2013) Non-random dispersal drives phenotypic divergence within a bird population. Ecol Evol 3:4841–4848
Clobert J, Galliard L, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12:197–209
Cody ML (1984) Habitat Selection in Birds. Academic Press, Orlando
Doligez B, Pärt T (2008) Estimating fitness consequences of dispersal: a road to ‘know-where’? Non-random dispersal and the underestimation of dispersers’ fitness. J Anim Ecol 77:1199–1211
Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (1999) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non-colonial, hole-nesting species, the collared flycatcher. J Anim Ecol 68:1193–1206
Dreiss AN, Antoniazza S, Burri R, Fumagalli L, Sonnay C, Frey C, Goudet J, Roulin A (2012) Local adaptation and matching habitat choice in female barn owls with respect to melanic coloration. J Evol Biol 25:103–114
Duckworth RA (2006) Aggressive behavior affects selection on morphology by determining the environment of breeding in a passerine bird. Proc R Soc B 273:1789–1795
Edelaar P, Bolnick DI (2012) Non-random gene flow: an underappreciated force in evolution and ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 27:659–665
Edelaar P, Siepielski AM, Clobert J (2008) Matching habitat choice causes directed gene flow: a neglected dimension in evolution and ecology. Evolution 62:2462–2472
Forstmeier W, Bourski OV, Leisler B (2001) Habitat choice in phylloscopus warblers: the role of morphology, phylogeny and competition. Oecologia 128:566–576
Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36
Garant D, Kruuk LEB, Wilkin TA, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2005) Evolution driven by differential dispersal within a wild bird population. Nature 433:60–65
Gaston AJ (1974) Adaptation in the genus phylloscopus. Ibis 116:432–450
Gosler AG (1987) Pattern and process in the bill morphology of the great tit Parus major. Ibis 129:45l–476
Gustafsson L, Sutherland WJ (1988) The costs of reproduction in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Nature 335:813–815
Holt RD, Barfield M (2008) Habitat selection and niche conservatism. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:279–285
Karpestam E, Wennersten L, Forsman A (2012) Matching habitat choice by experimentally mismatched phenotypes. Evol Ecol 26:893–907
Ketterson ED, Nolan VAL, Cawthorn MJ, Parker PG, Ziegenfus C (1996) Phenotypic engineering: using hormones to explore the mechanistic and functional bases of phenotypic variation in nature. Ibis 138:70–86
Korner-Nievergelt F, Leisler B (2004) Morphological convergence in conifer-dwelling passerines. J Ornithol 145:245–255
Limmer B, Becker PH (2010) Improvement of reproductive performance with age and breeding experience depends on recruitment age in a long-lived seabird. Oikos 119:500–507
Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1986) Heritability and selection on tarsus length in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Evolution 40:574–583
Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1992) The Pied Flycatcher. T & AD Poyser, London
Lundberg A, Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Ulfstrand S (1981) Biometry, habitat distribution and breeding success in the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Ornis Scand 12:68–79
Merilaita S, Lind J (2005) Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:665–670
Merino S, Potti J (1995) Mites and blowflies decrease growth and survival in nestling pied flycatchers. Oikos 73:95–103
Moore BA, Pita D, Tyrrell LP, Fernández-Juricic E (2015) Vision in avian emberizid foragers: maximizing both binocular vision and fronto-lateral visual acuity. J Exp Biol. doi:10.1242/jeb.108613
Morris DW (2003) Towards an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13
Nicolaus M, Tinbergen JM, Bouwman KM, Michler SP, Ubels R, Both C, Kampenaers B, Dingemanse NJ (2012) Experimental evidence for adaptive personalities in a wild passerine bird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:4885–4892
Potti J, Merino S (1994) Heritability estimates and maternal effects on tarsus length in pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Oecologia 100:331–338
Potti J, Montalvo S (1990) Ocupación de áreas con nidales por el papamoscas cerrojillo (Ficedula hypoleuca). Ardeola 37:75–84
Potti J, Montalvo S (1991) Return rate, age at first breeding and natal dispersal of pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca in central Spain. Ardea 79:419–428
Potti J, Dávila JA, Tella JL, Frías Ó, Villar S (2002) Gender and viability selection on morphology in fledgling pied flycatchers. Mol Ecol 11:1317–1326
Potti J, Canal D, Serrano D (2013) Lifetime fitness and age-related female ornament signalling: evidence for survival and fecundity selection in the pied flycatcher. J Evol Biol 26:1445–1457
Price T (1991) Morphology and ecology of breeding warblers along an altitudinal gradient in Kashmir, India. J Anim Ecol 60:643–664
Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Selander RK (1966) Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68:113–151
Senar JC, Pascual J (1997) Keel and tarsus length may provide a good predictor of avian body size. Ardea 85:269–274
Sirkïa MP, Laaksonen T (2009) Distinguishing between male and territory quality: females choose multiple traits in the pied flycatcher. Anim Behav 78:1051–1060
Wennersten L, Karpestam E, Forsman A (2012) Phenotype manipulation influences microhabitat choice in pygmy grasshoppers. Curr Zool 58:392–400
Wiggins DA, Pärt T (1995) Sexual dimorphism and breeding success in tree swallows and collared flycatchers. Condor 97:267–271
Acknowledgments
We thank María Cuenca, Óscar Frías, Alba Ruiz and Inés Valencia for their assistance with fieldwork, Pim Edelaar for discussions, and three anonymous reviewers for insightful comments on earlier drafts. C.C. received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, through the Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D&I (SEV-2012-0262). D.C. was supported by project CGL2009-10652. Since 1987, J.P.’s work has been funded by the Spanish Governments, most recently by projects CGL2011-29694, CGL2012-35232 and CGL2014-55969-P.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Camacho, C., Canal, D. & Potti, J. Testing the matching habitat choice hypothesis in nature: phenotype-environment correlation and fitness in a songbird population. Evol Ecol 29, 873–886 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-015-9793-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-015-9793-4