, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 61–67 | Cite as

Correlates of lifetime reproductive success in three species of European ducks

  • Peter Blums
  • Robert G. Clark
Population Ecology


Number of breeding attempts is a strong correlate of lifetime reproductive success (LRS) in birds, but the relative importance of potentially interacting factors affecting LRS has rarely been fully evaluated. We considered simultaneously five main factors hypothesized to influence LRS (age at first breeding, nesting date, number of breeding attempts, female traits, brood parasitism) by analyzing with path analysis 22-year data sets for 1,279 individually marked females and their offspring in tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), common pochard (A. ferina) and northern shoveler (Anas clypeata). We recaptured marked offspring as breeding adults (n=496 females) and obtained more complete estimates of LRS by incorporating information about banded ducklings of both sexes shot by hunters ≥12 months after banding (n=138). In tufted ducks and especially pochard (both diving duck species), late-hatched females tended to delay nesting until 2-years old. Most females (tufted duck, 74%; pochard, 71%; shoveler, 59%) apparently produced no breeding-age offspring. Number of breeding attempts (i.e., longevity) was the strongest correlate of LRS in all species, after controlling effects of age at first breeding, relative nest initiation date, wing length and body mass. Percentage of females producing recruits increased gradually with number of breeding attempts for all three species. Also, as expected, females nesting early in the breeding season had higher LRS than late-nesting individuals. In shoveler, female-specific characteristics of relatively longer wings and heavier late incubation body mass had positive effects on LRS, the latter feature being more common in 2-year-old nesters. In diving ducks, no relationships were detected between LRS and female-specific traits like wing length or body mass, and nor did acceptance of parasitic eggs have any deleterious impact on fitness estimates. Overall, number of fledged ducklings and LRS were related in tufted duck, weakly associated in pochard and unrelated in shoveler, implying that fledging success is not always a reliable measure of LRS.


Birds Fitness Fledging success Lifetime reproductive success Recruitment 



We thank many people who assisted with field work or contributed to the maintenance of the database, in particular, J. Baltvilks (deceased), I. Bauga, A. Celmins, A. Graubica, G. Graubics, M. Janaus, J. Kats, M. Kazubierne, J. Kazubiernis, P. Leja, G. Lejins (deceased), J. Lipsbergs, A. Mednis, H. Mihelsons (deceased), A. Petrins, V. Pilats, V. Reders, J. Viksne, and A. Stipniece. D. Spals and V. Klimpins provided technical support throughout the study. K. Dufour, M. Mangel and an anonymous referee provided useful comments on the final version of the manuscript. Funding for the field work and data computerization of this long-term research project was provided by the Institute of Biology, University of Latvia (formerly Latvian Academy of Sciences). P. Blums was supported by a grant (DEB–0108373) from the National Science Foundation, USA, during data analysis and manuscript preparation. This research was, in part, supported by the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station.


  1. Blums P, Reders V, Mednis A, Baumanis J (1983) Automatic drop-door traps for ducks. J Wildl Manage 47:199–203Google Scholar
  2. Blums P, Mednis A, Nichols JD (1994) Retention of web tags and plasticine-filled leg bands applied to day-old ducklings. J Wildl Manage 58:76–81Google Scholar
  3. Blums P, Mednis A, Bauga I, Nichols JD, Hines JE (1996) Age-specific survival and philopatry in three species of European ducks: a long-term study. Condor 98:61–74Google Scholar
  4. Blums P, Mednis A, Clark RG (1997) Effect of incubation body mass on reproductive success and survival of three European diving ducks: a test of the nutrient limitation hypothesis. Condor 99:916–925Google Scholar
  5. Blums P, Clark RG, Mednis A (2002a) Patterns of reproductive effort and success in birds: path analyses of long-term data from European ducks. J Anim Ecol 71:280–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blums P, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Mednis A (2002b) Sources of variation in survival and breeding site fidelity in three species of European ducks. J Anim Ecol 71:438–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blums P, Nichols JD, Lindberg MS, Hines JE, Mednis A (2003) Factors affecting breeding dispersal of European ducks on Engure Marsh, Latvia. J Anim Ecol 72:292–307Google Scholar
  8. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown DG, Weis AE (1995) Direct and indirect effects of prior grazing of goldenrod upon the performance of a Leaf Beetle. Ecology 76:426–436Google Scholar
  10. Dow H, Fredga S (1984) Factors affecting reproductive output of the goldeneye duck Bucephala clangula. J Anim Ecol 53:679–692Google Scholar
  11. Dugger BD (1996) The impact of brood parasitism on host fitness in common pochards and tufted ducks. PhD thesis, University of Missouri-ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugger BD, Blums P (2001) Effect of conspecific brood parasitism on host fitness for tufted duck and common pochard. Auk 118:717–726Google Scholar
  13. Eadie JM, Kehoe FP, Nudds TD (1988) Pre-hatch and post-hatch brood amalgamation in North American Anatidae: a review of hypotheses. Can J Zool 66:1709–1721Google Scholar
  14. Espie RHM, Oliphant LW, James PC, Warkentin IG, Lieske DJ (2000) Age-dependent breeding performance in merlins (Falco columbarius). Ecology 81:3404–3415Google Scholar
  15. Grace JB, Pugesek BH (1997) A structural equation model of plant species richness and its application to coastal wetland. Am Nat 149:436–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant PR, Grant BR (2000) Non-random fitness variation in two populations of Darwin’s finches. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:131–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatcher L (1996) A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson ML, Huggins DG, DeNoyelles F Jr (1991) Ecosystem modeling with LISREL: a new approach for measuring direct and indirect effects. Ecol Appl 1:383–398Google Scholar
  19. Kingsolver JG, Schemske DW (1991) Path analyses of selection. Trends Ecol Evol 6:276–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krüger O (2002) Dissecting common buzzard lifespan and lifetime reproductive success: the relative important of food, competition, weather, habitat and individual attributes. Oecologia 133:474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambrechts M, Blondel MJ, Caizergues A, Dias PC, Pradel R, Thomas DW (1999) Will estimates of lifetime recruitment of breeding offspring on small-scale study plots help us to quantify processes underlying adaptation? Oikos 86:147–151Google Scholar
  22. Larsson K, van der Jeigd HP, van der Venn IT, Forslund P (1998) Body size declines despite positive directional selection on heritable size traits in a barnacle goose population. Evolution 52:1169–1184Google Scholar
  23. Loehlin JC (1992) Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  24. Marti CD (1996) Lifetime reproductive success in barn owls near the limit of the species’ range. Auk 114:581–592Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell RJ (1992) Testing evolutionary and ecological hypotheses using path analysis and structural equation modeling. Funct Ecol 6:123–129Google Scholar
  26. Newton I (1989) Lifetime reproduction in birds. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Oli MK, Hepp GR, Kennamer RA (2002) Fitness consequences of delayed maturity in female wood ducks. Evol Ecol Res 4:563–576Google Scholar
  28. Prévot-Julliard A-C, Pradel R, Julliard R, Grosbois V, Lebreton J-D (2001) Hatching date influences age at first reproduction. Oecologia 127:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pugesek BH, Tomer A (1996) The Bumpus house sparrow data: a reanalysis using structural equation models. Evol Ecol 10:387–404Google Scholar
  30. Roff DA (2002) Life history evolution. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  31. SAS Institute Inc (1989) SAS/STAT User’s guide, 4th edn, vol 1–2. SAS Institute, Inc. CaryGoogle Scholar
  32. Sayler RD (1992) Ecology and evolution of brood parasitism in waterfowl. In: Batt BDJ, Afton AD, Anderson MG, Ankney CD, Johnson DH, Kadlec JA, Krapu GL (eds) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 290–322Google Scholar
  33. Sinervo B, DeNardo DF (1996) Costs of reproduction in the wild: path analysis of natural selection and evolutionary test of causation. Evolution 50:1299–1313Google Scholar
  34. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life-histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Viallefont A, Cooke F, Lebreton J-D (1995) Age-specific costs of first-time breeding. Auk 112:67–76Google Scholar
  36. Viksne J (2000) Changes of nesting bird fauna at the Engure Ramsar Site, Latvia, during the last 50 years. Proc Latvian Acad Sci Sect B 54:213–220Google Scholar
  37. Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1997) Genetic estimates of annual and lifetime reproductive success in male red-winged blackbirds. Ecology 78:884–896Google Scholar
  38. Wootton JT (1994) Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of BiologyUniversity of LatviaSalaspilsLatvia
  2. 2.Canadian Wildlife ServicePrairie and Northern Wildlife Research CentreSaskatoonCanada
  3. 3.Gaylord Memorial LaboratoryUniversity of MissouriPuxicoUSA

Personalised recommendations