Oecologia

, Volume 141, Issue 4, pp 555–561 | Cite as

Habitat quality as a predictor of spatial variation in blue tit reproductive performance: a multi-plot analysis in a heterogeneous landscape

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
  • Samuel Caro
  • Anne Charmantier
  • Nicolas Gross
  • Marie-Jo Galan
  • Philippe Perret
  • Mireille Cartan-Son
  • Paula C. Dias
  • Jacques Blondel
  • Donald W. Thomas
Population Ecology

Abstract

Vertebrate studies have rarely investigated the influence of spatial variation in habitat richness on both short-term (breeding) and long-term (offspring recruitment) reproductive performance using simultaneously multi-patch, multi-habitat type and multi-year approaches at landscape level. Here we present results of such an approach using the influence of two oak tree (Quercus ilex, Q. humilis) species on reproductive performance in Corsican blue tits (Parus caeruleus ogliastrae) as a model system. We found that blue tits breeding in rich broad-leaved deciduous patches consistently laid eggs earlier in the season, and produced larger clutches and more fledglings of higher quality, than those breeding in poor evergreen patches. Also, parents, especially males, were in better physical condition in the broad-leaved deciduous than in the evergreen patches. Surprisingly, estimates of long-term effects of reproduction, such as recruitment rates of locally born offspring, did not differ between the two habitat types. Our results suggest that short-term breeding performance and phenotypic quality of both chicks and parents do not necessarily provide reliable information about contributions to following generations at a scale larger than that of the local study plot. Differences in reproductive performance between the two oak habitat types could not be attributed to density-dependent effects, differences in levels of nest predation, or differences in age structure of the birds. We suggest that habitats that are optimal for breeding are not necessarily optimal for survival after the breeding season.

Keywords

Habitat quality Parus caeruleus Predation Quercus Reproduction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to B. Naef-Daenzer, L. Brotons and an anonymous referee for valuable comments on this manuscript, Y. Chabi, M. Maistre, A. Simon, I. Tremblay and OFQJ students for help with field work, and M.C. Anstett, P.-A. Crochet and V. Grosbois for discussions. M.M.L. received financial support from European network METABIRD (EVK2-CT-1999-00017). Birds were trapped with permission from the CRBPO, France.

References

  1. Adriaensen F, Dhondt AA, van Dongen S, Lens L, Matthysen E (1998) Stabilizing selection on blue tit fledging mass in the presence of sparrowhawks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 25:1011–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366Google Scholar
  3. Banbura J, Blondel J, de Wilde-Lambrechts H, Galan M-J, Maistre M (1994) Nestling diet variation in an insular Mediterranean population of blue tits Parus caeruleus: effects of years, territories and individuals. Oecologia 100:413–420Google Scholar
  4. Banbura J, Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Perret P, Cartan-Son M (1999) Food handling time of blue tit chicks: constraints and adaptation to different prey types. J Avian Biol 30:263–270Google Scholar
  5. Blondel J (1985) Breeding strategies of the Blue Tit and the Coal Tit (Parus) in mainland and island Mediterranean habitats: a comparison. J Anim Ecol 54:531–556Google Scholar
  6. Blondel J, Dervieux A, Maistre M, Perret P (1991) Feeding ecology and life-history variation of the blue tit in Mediterranean deciduous and sclerphyllous habitats. Oecologia 88:9–14Google Scholar
  7. Blondel J, Dias PC, Maistre M, Perret P (1993) Habitat heterogeneity and life-history variation of Mediterranean blue tits (Parus caeruleus). Auk 110:511–520Google Scholar
  8. 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 285:1399–1402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Blondel J, Isenmann P (1979) Insularité et démographie des Mésanges du genre Parus (Aves). CR Acad Sci Paris, Sér D 289:161–164Google Scholar
  10. Blondel J, Perret P, Dias PC, Lambrechts MM (2001) Is phenotypic variation of blue tits (Parus caeruleus L.) in mediterranean mainland and insular landscapes adaptive? Genet Select Evol 33:121–139Google Scholar
  11. Blondel J, Perret P, Maistre M, Dias PC (1992) Do harlequin Mediterranean environments function as source sink for blue tits (Parus caeruleus L.). Landscape Ecol 6:213–219Google Scholar
  12. Bradbury RB, Payne RJH, Wilson JD, Krebs JR (2001) Predicting population responses to resource management. Trends Ecol Evol 16:440–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braillet C, Charmantier A, Archaux F, Dos Santos A, Perret P, Lambrechts MM (2002) Two blue tit Parus caeruleus populations from Corsica differ in social dominance. J Avian Biol 33:444–450Google Scholar
  14. Brotons L, Monkkonen M, Huhta E, Nikula A, Rajasarkka A (2003) Effects of landscape structure and forest reserve location on old-growth forest bird species in Northern Finland. Landscape Ecol 18:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruun M, Smith HG (2003) Landscape composition affects habitat use and foraging flight distances in breeding European starlings. Biol Conserv 114:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charmantier A (2003) Hétérogénéité de l’environnement en région méditerranéenne et évolution de la valeur sélective: paternités hors-couple et héritabilité de traits phénotypiques chez la Mésange bleue. PhD thesis. ENSAM, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  17. Charmantier A, Kruuk LEB, Blondel J, Lambrechts MM (2004) Testing for microevolution in body size in three blue tit populations. J Evol Biol 17:732–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dias PC (1996) Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:326–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dias PC, Blondel J (1996) Breeding time, food supply and fitness components in Mediterranean blue tits. Ibis 138:108–113Google Scholar
  20. Donald PF, Pisano G, Rayment MD, Pain DJ (2002) The common agricultural policy, EU enlargement and the conservation of Europe’s farmland birds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doutrelant C, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM (2000) Blue tit song repertoire size, male quality and interspecific competition. J Avian Biol 31:360–366Google Scholar
  22. Gosler A, Greenwood JJD, Perrins CM (1995) Predation risk and the cost of being fat. Nature 377:621–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1995) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawecki TJ (1995) Demography of source-sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches. Evol Ecol 9:38–44Google Scholar
  25. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broek M, Burke T, Vanbroeckhoven C, Dhondt AA (1992) Extrapair paternity results from female preference for high quality males in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus). Nature 537:494–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambrechts M, Dhondt AA (1988) Male quality and territory quality in the great tit. Anim Behav 36:596–601Google Scholar
  27. Lambrechts MM, Perret P (2000) A long photoperiod overrides non-photoperiodic factors in blue tits’ timing of reproduction. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:585–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lambrechts MM, Perret P, Blondel J (1996) Adaptive differences in the timing of egg laying between different populations of birds result from variation in photoresponsiveness. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:19–22Google Scholar
  29. Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Hurtrez-Boussès S, Maistre M, Perret P (1997a) Adaptive inter-population differentiation in blue tit life-history traits on Corsica. Evol Ecol 11:599–612Google Scholar
  30. Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Maistre M, Perret P (1997b) A single response mechanism is responsible for evolutionary adaptive variation in a bird’s laying date. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:5153–5155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, 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
  32. Lambrechts MM, Prieur B, Caizergues A, Dehorter O, Galan M-J, Perret P (2000a) Risk-taking restraints in a bird with reduced egg-hatching success. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:333–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambrechts MM, Visser ME, Verboven N (2000b) Consequences of dispersal for the quantitative study of adaptation in small-scale plots: a case study of an avian island population. Ecography 23:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law R, Watkinson AR (1989) Competition. In: Cherrett JM (ed) Ecological concepts. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 243–284Google Scholar
  35. Lemel J (1989) Habitat distribution in the great tit Parus major in relation to reproductive success, dominance, and biometry. Ornis Scand 20:226–233Google Scholar
  36. Lohmus A (2003) Are certain habitats better every year? A review and a case study on birds of prey. Ecography 26:545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin TE (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:453–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naef-Daenzer B, Keller LF (1999) The foraging performance of great and blue tits (Parus major and P. caeruleus) in relation to caterpillar development, and its consequences for nestling growth and fledging weight. J Anim Ecol 68:708–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naef-Daenzer L, Naef-Daenzer B, Nager RG (2000) Prey selection and foraging performance of breeding great tits Parus major in relation to food availability. J Avian Biol 31:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naef-Daenzer L, Widmer F, Nuber M (2001) Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. J Anim Ecol 70:730–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perrins CM (1965) Population fluctuations and clutch size in the great tit Parus major L. J Anim Ecol 34:601–647Google Scholar
  42. Perrins CM (1979) British tits. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Perrins CM, McCleery RH (2001) The effect of fledgling mass on the lives of great tits Parus major. Ardea 89:135–142Google Scholar
  44. Przybylo R, Wiggins DA, Merilä J (2001) Breeding success in blue tits: good territories or good parents? J Avian Biol 32:214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Remes V (2000) How can maladaptive habitat choice generate source-sink population dynamics? Oikos 91:579–582Google Scholar
  47. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  48. Robinson SK, Thompson FR III, Donovan TM, Whitehead DR, Faaborg J (1995) Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1887–1990Google Scholar
  49. SAS (1992) SAS user’s guide, statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  50. Smith JM, Hellman JJ (2002) Population persistence in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 17:397–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suorsa P, Helle H, Koivunen V, Huhta E, Hakkarainen H (2004) Effects of forest patch size on physiological stress and immunocompetence in an area-sensitive passerine, the Eurasian treecreeper (Certhia familiaris): an experiment. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:435–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutherland W (1996) From individual behaviour to population ecology (Oxford series in ecology and evolution). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Svensson E, Nilsson J-A (1995) Food supply, territory quality, and reproductive timing in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus). Ecology 76:1804–1812Google Scholar
  54. Thomas DM, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM, Speakman JR (2001) Energetic and fitness costs of mismatching resource supply and demand in seasonally breeding birds. Science 291:2598–2600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tremblay I, Thomas DW, Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Perret P (2003) Variation in blue tit breeding performance across gradients in habitat richness. Ecology 84:3033–3043Google Scholar
  56. Tremblay I, Thomas DW, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM (2004) The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican blue tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis 146 (in press)Google Scholar
  57. Tinbergen JM, Boerlijst MC (1990) Nestling weight and survival in individual great tits Parus major. J Anim Ecol 59:1113–1128Google Scholar
  58. Ulfstrand S, Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Lundberg A (1981) Habitat distribution and body size of the great tit Parus major. Ibis 123:494–498Google Scholar
  59. van Noordwijk AJ, de Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life-history tactics. Am Nat 128:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verboven N, Visser ME (1998) Seasonal variation in local recruitment of great tits—the importance of being early. Oikos 81:511–524Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
    • 1
  • Samuel Caro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne Charmantier
    • 1
  • Nicolas Gross
    • 1
  • Marie-Jo Galan
    • 1
  • Philippe Perret
    • 1
  • Mireille Cartan-Son
    • 1
  • Paula C. Dias
    • 1
  • Jacques Blondel
    • 1
  • Donald W. Thomas
    • 3
  1. 1.CEFE/CNRSMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Center for Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, Research Group in Behavioural NeuroendocrinologyUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.Département de BiologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations