Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 150, Issue 1, pp 299–302 | Cite as

Sex differences in body size and body condition in breeding Temminck’s Stints Calidris temminckii

  • Terje Lislevand
  • Gunnhild Marthinsen
  • Jan T. Lifjeld
Short Note

Abstract

There have been very few reports of body size measurements of live Temminck’s Stints, but earlier studies have shown sex differences in body mass and tarsus length. Here we use molecular techniques to determine the sex of Temminck’s Stints from a Norwegian breeding population. In total, we report measurements of body weight, wing length, tarsus length, bill length, skull length and keel length from 17 males and 30 females. We found significant sex differences in all of these variables, with the exception of tarsus length. The differences in skull length disappeared after the bill lengths had been subtracted from the measurements. A discriminant function analysis based on wing length and bill length correctly classified 86% of the cases (12/16 males, 25/27 females). Female Temminck’s Stints are known to regularly lay more than one clutch of eggs per season and could therefore be expected to be physiologically deprived of bodily energy stores. Nevertheless, we found females to be in better body condition than males.

Keywords

Body condition Body size Discriminant function analysis Molecular sexing Shorebirds 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jan Lindström for help with the statistical analyses and an anonymous referee for comments on a previous version of the manuscript. TL was funded by the Research Council of Norway (project no. 138734/410), a Marie Curie fellowship from the European Commission (ref. no. 41756) and grants from the Norwegian Directorate of Nature Management and the Norwegian Ornithological Society. The methods in this study are in compliance with current Norwegian law.

References

  1. Breiehagen T (1989) Nesting biology and mating system in an alpine population of Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii. Ibis 131:389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cramp S, Simmons KEL (1983) The birds of the western palearctic, vol 3. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Glutz von Blotzheim UN (2001) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas auf CD-Rom. Vogelzug-Verlag im Humanitas Buchversand, WiebelsheimGoogle Scholar
  4. Green PT, Theobald CM (1989) Sexing birds by discriminant analysis: further considerations. Ibis 131:442–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson JG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 7:1071–1075. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00389.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hildén O (1975) Breeding system of Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii. Ornis Fenn 52:117–146Google Scholar
  7. Liker A, Szekely T (2005) Mortality costs of sexual selection and parental care in natural populations of birds. Evolution 59:890–897. doi: 10.1554/04-560 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Prater AJ, Marchant JH, Vuorinen J (1977) Guide to the identification and ageing of Holarctic waders. BTO guide 17. British Trust for Ornithology, TringGoogle Scholar
  9. Rönkä A, Kvist L, Karvonen J, Koivula K, Pakanen V-M, Schamel D, Tracy DM (2008) Population genetic structure in the Temminck’s stint Calidris temminckii, with an emphasis on Fennoscandian populations. Conserv Genet 9:29–37. doi: 10.1007/s10592-007-9299-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Svensson L (1992) Identification guide to European passerines, 4th edn. Privately published, StockholmGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terje Lislevand
    • 1
  • Gunnhild Marthinsen
    • 2
  • Jan T. Lifjeld
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.National Centre for Biosystematics, Natural History MuseumUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations