Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 188, Issue 3, pp 765–776 | Cite as

Within- and between-year variations of reproductive strategy and cost in a population of Siberian chipmunks

  • Christie Le Coeur
  • Benoît Pisanu
  • Jean-Louis Chapuis
  • Alexandre Robert
Population ecology – original research

Abstract

Reproduction costs depend on the general life-history strategies employed by organisms for resource acquisition, the decision rules on resource allocation, and the resource availability. Although the predictability of resource availability is expected to influence the breeding strategy, the relationship between predictability and strategy has rarely been investigated at the population level. One reason is that, while the resource availability is commonly variable in space and time, their predictability is generally assumed constant. Here, we addressed the temporal variation of the breeding strategy and its associated survival cost in a hibernating population of Tamias sibiricus, in which food resources vary in their availability between years and in their predictability within years. Based on 11 years of mark–recapture data, we used multi-event modelling to investigate seasonal variations in reproduction costs of female chipmunks that breed twice a year (spring and summer). In summer, during which a large variety and quantity of resources is available (income breeding strategy), the proportion of breeding females was consistent across years and reproduction yielded no mortality cost. In contrast, in spring, the proportion of breeding females was positively correlated with the amount of resources available for hibernation (partial capital breeding strategy). Spring reproduction yielded no immediate cost, but induced a delayed mortality cost over the next winter if future unknown conditions were unfavorable. Our findings highlight complex temporal reproductive patterns in a short-lived species: not only does the modality of resource acquisition vary among seasons, but also the decision rule to breed and its associated cost.

Keywords

Capital and income breeders Carry-over effects Delayed survival cost of reproduction Hibernation Tamias sibiricus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the National Forest Office (Office National des Forêts, France) for financial support and for allowing fieldwork in the site ‘La Faisanderie’. This work was also funded by the Conseil Régional d’Ile-de-France, the Conseil Départemental des Hauts-de-Seine and the Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement durable et de l’Energie. We are thankful to F. Bart, A. Bouiges, A. Bourgeois, N. Boyer, C. Huchery, C. Jérusalem, J. Marmet, M. Marsot and M. Roussel for their contribution in mark–recapture monitoring.

Author contribution statement

JLC and BP conceived the monitoring design, JLC, BP, and CLC collected data, CLC and AR performed modelling work and analyzed the data. CLC and AR wrote the manuscript, with assistance from other authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4259_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (508 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 508 kb)
442_2018_4259_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 4052 kb)

References

  1. Acker P, Robert A, Bourget R, Colas B (2014) Heterogeneity of reproductive age increases the viability of semelparous populations. Funct Ecol 28:458–468.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron P, Réale D, Humphries MM, Garant D (2011) Anticipation and tracking of pulsed resources drive population dynamics in eastern chipmunks. Ecology 92:2027–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnet X, Bradshaw D, Shine R (1998) Capital versus income breeding: an ectothermic perspective. Oikos 83:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonnet X, Naulleau G, Shine R, Lourdais O (1999) What is the appropriate timescale for measuring costs of reproduction in a “capital breeder” such as the aspic viper? Evol Ecol 13:485–497.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006712713698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouwhuis S, Choquet R, Sheldon BC, Verhulst S (2012) The forms and fitness cost of senescence: age-specific recapture, survival, reproduction, and reproductive value in a wild bird population. Am Nat 179:E15–E27.  https://doi.org/10.1086/663194 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cam E, Hines JE, Monnat JY et al (1998) Are adult nonbreeders prudent parents? The Kittiwake model. Ecology 79:2917–2930.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079%5b2917:AANPPT%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cam E, Gimenez O, Alpizar-Jara R et al (2013) Looking for a needle in a haystack: inference about individual fitness components in a heterogeneous population. Oikos 122:739–753.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20532.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapuis J-L, Obolenskaya E V., Pisanu B, Lissovsky AA (2009) Datasheet on Tamias sibiricus. CABI, Wellingford, UK. http://www.cabi.org/isc/. Accessed Mar 2018
  10. Choquet R, Lebreton J-D, Gimenez O et al (2009a) U-CARE: utilities for performing goodness of fit tests and manipulating CApture-REcapture data. Ecography (Cop) 32:1071–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05968.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choquet R, Rouan L, Pradel R (2009b) Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer US, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Creighton JC, Heflin ND, Belk MC (2009) Cost of reproduction, resource quality, and terminal investment in a burying beetle. Am Nat 174:673–684.  https://doi.org/10.1086/605963 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cubaynes S, Doherty PF, Schreiber EA, Gimenez O (2011) To breed or not to breed: a seabird’s response to extreme climatic events. Biol Lett 7:303–306.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0778 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O et al (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis SE, Nager RG, Furness RW (2005) Food availability affects adult survival as well as breeding success of parasitic jaegers. Ecology 86:1047–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Debeffe L, Poissant J, McLoughlin PD (2017) Individual quality and age but not environmental or social conditions modulate costs of reproduction in a capital breeder. Ecol Evol 7:5580–5591.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3082 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Descamps S, Boutin S, McAdam AG et al (2009) Survival costs of reproduction vary with age in North American red squirrels. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:1129–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudash MR, Fenster CB (1997) Multiyear study of pollen limitation and cost of reproduction in the iteroparous Silene virginica. Ecology 78:484–493.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078%5b0484:MSOPLA%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forslund P, Part T (1995) Age and reproduction in birds—hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 10:374–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89141-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frick WF, Reynolds DS, Kunz TH (2010) Influence of climate and reproductive timing on demography of little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus. J Anim Ecol 79:128–136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01615.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaillard J-M, Yoccoz NG (2003) Temporal variation in survival of mammals: a case of environmental canalization? Ecology 84:3294–3306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gimenez O, Cam E, Gaillard J-M (2018) Individual heterogeneity and capture–recapture models: what, why and how? Oikos 127:664–686.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gross MR (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamel S, Gaillard J-M, Yoccoz NG et al (2010) Fitness costs of reproduction depend on life speed: empirical evidence from mammalian populations. Ecol Lett 13:915–935.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01478.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison XA, Blount JD, Inger R et al (2011) Carry-over effects as drivers of fitness differences in animals. J Anim Ecol 80:4–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01740.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison XA, Hodgson DJ, Inger R et al (2013) Environmental conditions during breeding modify the strength of mass-dependent carry-over effects in a migratory bird. PLoS One 8:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harshman LG, Zera AJ (2007) The cost of reproduction: the devil in the details. Trends Ecol Evol 22:80–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodges CJ, Bowers EK, Thompson CF, Sakaluk SK (2015) Cascading costs of reproduction in female house wrens induced to lay larger clutches. J Evol Biol 28:1383–1393.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12662 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Houston AI, Stephens PA, Boyd IL et al (2007) Capital or income breeding? A theoretical model of female reproductive strategies. Behav Ecol 18:241–250.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Humphries MM, Thomas DW, Kramer DL (2003) The role of energy availability in mammalian hibernation: a cost-benefit approach. Physiol Biochem Zool 76:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inger R, Harrison XA, Ruxton GD et al (2010) Carry-over effects reveal reproductive costs in a long-distance migrant. J Anim Ecol 79:974–982.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01712.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jönsson KI (1997) Capital and income breeding as alternative tactics of resource use in reproduction. Oikos 78:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kawamichi M (1980) Food, food hoarding and seasonal changes of Siberian chipmunks. Jpn J Ecol 30:211–220Google Scholar
  34. Kawamichi M, Kawamichi T (1984) Maternal care and independence of young Siberian chipmunks. Honyurui Kagaku Mamm Sci (in Japanese) 48:3–17Google Scholar
  35. Kawamichi M, Kawamichi T, Kishimoto R (1987) Social organization of solitary mammals. Animal societies: theories and facts. Japan Science Society press, Tokyo, pp 173–188Google Scholar
  36. Koivula M, Koskela E, Mappes T, Oksanen TA (2003) Cost of reproduction in the wild: manipulation of reproductive effort in bank vole. Ecology 84:398–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koops MA, Hutchings JA, Adams BK (2003) Environmental predictability and the cost of imperfect information: influence on offspring size variability. Evol Ecol Res 5:29–42Google Scholar
  38. Le Coeur C, Robert A, Pisanu B, Chapuis J-L (2015a) Seasonal variation in infestations by ixodids on Siberian chipmunks: effects of host age, sex, and birth season. Parasitol Res 114:2069–2078.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-015-4391-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Le Coeur C, Thibault M, Pisanu B et al (2015b) Temporally fluctuating selection on a personality trait in a wild rodent population. Behav Ecol 26:1285–1291.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Le Coeur C, Chantepie S, Pisanu B et al (2016) Inter-annual and inter-individual variations in survival exhibit strong seasonality in a hibernating rodent. Oecologia 181:795–807.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3597-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lescroël A, Dugger KM, Ballard G, Ainley DG (2009) Effects of individual quality, reproductive success and environmental variability on survival of a long-lived seabird. J Anim Ecol 78:798–806.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindström K (2001) Effects of resource distribution on sexual selection and the cost of reproduction in sandgobies. Am Nat 158:64–74.  https://doi.org/10.1086/320867 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Marmet J, Pisanu B, Chapuis J-L (2009) Home range, range overlap, and site fidelity of introduced Siberian chipmunks in a suburban French forest. Eur J Wildl Res 55:497–504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-009-0266-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marmet J, Pisanu B, Chapuis J-L et al (2012) Factors affecting male and female reproductive success in a chipmunk (Tamias sibiricus) with a scramble competition mating system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1449–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1399-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCleery RH, Clobert J, Julliard R, Perrins CM (1996) Nest predation and delayed cost of reproduction in the great tit. J Anim Ecol 65:96–104.  https://doi.org/10.2307/5703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nevoux M, Weimerskirch H, Barbraud C (2007) Environmental variation and experience-related differences in the demography of the long-lived black-browed albatross. J Anim Ecol 76:159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01191.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Obeso JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00477.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ognev SI (1966) Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries. Vol. 4, RodentsGoogle Scholar
  49. Orzack SH, Steiner UK, Tuljapurkar S, Thompson P (2011) Static and dynamic expression of life history traits in the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. Oikos 120:369–380.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.17996.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pilastro A, Tavecchia G, Marin G (2003) Long living and reproduction skipping in the fat dormouse. Ecology 84:1784–1792.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084%5b1784:LLARSI%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pinot A, Gauffre B, Bretagnolle V (2014) The interplay between seasonality and density: consequences for female breeding decisions in a small cyclic herbivore. BMC Ecol 14:17.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-14-17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Pisanu B, Obolenskaya EV, Baudry E et al (2013) Narrow phylogeographic origin of five introduced populations of the Siberian chipmunk Tamias (Eutamias) sibiricus (Laxmann, 1769) (Rodentia: Sciuridae) established in France. Biol Invasions 15:1201–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0375-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pradel R (2005) Multievent: an extension of multistate capture-recapture models to uncertain states. Biometrics 61:442–447.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00318.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Promislow DEL, Harvey PH (1990) Living fast and dying young: a comparative analysis of life-history variation among mammals. J Zool 220:417–437.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1990.tb04316.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rauset GR, Low M, Persson J (2015) Reproductive patterns result from age-related sensitivity to resources and reproductive costs in a mammalian carnivore. Ecology 96:3153–3164.  https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0262.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Reznick DN (1985) Costs of reproduction: an evaluation of the empirical evidence. Oikos 44:257–267.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3544698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robert A, Paiva VH, Bolton M et al (2012) The interaction between reproductive cost and individual quality is mediated by oceanic conditions in a long-lived bird. Ecology 93:1944–1952.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1840.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Robert A, Paiva VH, Bolton M et al (2014) Nest fidelity is driven by multi-scale information in a long-lived seabird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20141692.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Robert A, Bolton M, Jiguet F, Bried J (2015) The survival-reproduction association becomes stronger when conditions are good. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:20151529.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roff DA (1992) Evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruf T, Fietz J, Schlund W, Bieber C (2006) High survival in poor years: life history tactics adapted to mast seeding in the edible dormouse. Ecology 87:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ruf T, Bieber C, Turbill C (2012) Survival, aging, and life-history tactics in mammalian hibernators. In: Ruf T, Bieber C, Arnold W, Millesi E (eds) Living in a seasonal world: thermoregulatory and metabolic adaptations. Springer, Berlin, pp 123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saether B-E, Bakke Ø (2000) Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81:642–653.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081%5b0642:ALHVAC%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Speakman JR (2008) The physiological costs of reproduction in small mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:375–398.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2145 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  66. Stephens PA, Houston AI, Harding KC et al (2014) Capital and income breeding: the role of food supply. Ecology 95:882–896.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1434.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Switzer PV (1993) Site fidelity in predictable and unpredictable habitats. Evol Ecol 7:533–555.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tannerfeldt M, Angerbjörn A (1998) Fluctuating resources and the evolution of litter size in the arctic fox. Oikos 83:545–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tarwater CE, Arcese P (2017) Young females pay higher costs of reproduction in a short-lived bird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2309-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tavecchia G, Pradel R, Boy V et al (2001) Sex- and age-related variation in survival and cost of first reproduction in Greater Flamingos. Ecology 82:165–174.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082%5b0165:SAARVI%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tavecchia G, Coulson T, Morgan BJT et al (2005) Predictors of reproductive cost in female Soay sheep. J Anim Ecol 74:201–213.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00916.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Toïgo C, Gaillard J-M, Gauthier D et al (2002) Female reproductive success and costs in an alpine capital breeder under contrasting environments. Ecoscience 9:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Török J, Hegyi G, Tóth L, Könczey R (2004) Unpredictable food supply modifies costs of reproduction and hampers individual optimization. Oecologia 141:432–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004- CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Turbill C, Bieber C, Ruf T (2011) Hibernation is associated with increased survival and the evolution of slow life histories among mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 278:3355–3363.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Varpe Ø, Jørgensen C, Tarling GA, Fiksen Ø (2009) The adaptive value of energy storage and capital breeding in seasonal environments. Oikos 118:363–370.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17036.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2678832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueSorbonne-UniversitéParisFrance

Personalised recommendations