Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 186, Issue 3, pp 665–675 | Cite as

Hoopoe males experience intra-seasonal while females experience inter-seasonal reproductive costs

  • Floriane PlardEmail author
  • Raphaël Arlettaz
  • Michael Schaub
Population ecology – original research

Abstract

Reproductive and survival costs due to reproductive investment are a central element for the evolution of life histories. Both intra- (reduction of reproductive performance of second brood due to investment in first brood) and inter-seasonal costs (reduction of reproductive performance or annual survival due to reproductive investment in preceding year) may appear in multiple breeding species. Knowledge about how trade-offs within and between seasons shape individual trajectories and influence fitness are crucial in life-history evolution, yet intra- and inter-seasonal reproductive costs are rarely analysed simultaneously. We investigated sex-specific differences in intra- and inter-seasonal reproductive and survival costs in response to previous reproductive effort in a monogamous, double-brooding bird, the hoopoe (Upupa epops), accounting for heterogeneity in individual and annual quality. Intra-seasonal reproductive costs were detected in males and inter-seasonal reproductive and survival costs were detected in females. In males, the probability of being a successful double breeder was negatively correlated with the number of hatchlings produced in the first brood. In females, the number of fledglings raised in the first brood was negatively correlated with the reproductive effort in the preceding season. Female annual survival was also negatively influenced by the number of broods produced in the previous reproductive season. Most of these reproductive costs were detected only in years with low productivity, suggesting that costs become evident when environmental conditions are harsh. Our results illustrate how different investment in current vs. future reproduction and survival shape different life-history strategies in males and females of a monogamous bird species.

Keywords

Double-breeding Environmental conditions Individual quality Trade-off Upupa epops 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the people that have been involved in data collection since the beginning of the study.

Author contribution statement

FP and MS designed the study. FP carried out the analysis and wrote the manuscript. RA and MS provided the data and helped commenting the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Data accessibility

Data would be made available conditional of the acceptance of the paper.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2017_4028_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (180 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 181 kb)

References

  1. Andersson M, Wiklund CG, Rundgren H (1980) Parental defense of offspring: a model and an example. Anim Behav 28:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlettaz R, Schaad M, Reichlin TS, Schaub M (2010a) Impact of weather and climate variation on Hoopoe reproductive ecology and population growth. J Ornithol 151:889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunisch V (2010b) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. Bioscience 60:835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H (2005) Environmental conditions and breeding experience affect costs of reproduction in blue petrels. Ecology 86:682–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Black JM, Owen M (1995) Reproductive-performance and assortative pairing in relation to age in barnacle geese. J Anim Ecol 64:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleu J, Gamelon M, Sæther BE (2016) Reproductive costs in terrestrial male vertebrates: insights from bird studies. Proc R Soc Lond B 283:20152600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bérubé CH, Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JT (1999) Individual differences, longevity, and reproductive senescence in bighorn ewes. Ecology 80:2555–2565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro SM, Griffin AS, Hinde CA, West SA (2016) Unpredictable environments lead to the evolution of parental neglect in birds. Nat Commun 7:10985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Isvaran K (2007) Sex differences in ageing in natural populations of vertebrates. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:3097–3104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cody ML (1966) A general theory of clutch size. Evolution 20:174–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Conrad KF, Robertson RJ (1992) Intraseasonal effects of clutch manipulation on parental provisioning and residual reproductive value of Eastern phoebes (Sayornis phoebe). Oecologia 89:356–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock TH, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Descamps S, Gilchrist HG, Bety J, Buttler EI, Forbes MR (2009) Costs of reproduction in a long-lived bird: large clutch size is associated with low survival in the presence of a highly virulent disease. Biol Lett 5:278–281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Drent RH, Daan S (1980) The prudent parent: energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Ardea 68:225–252Google Scholar
  17. Festa-Bianchet M, Gaillard JM, Jorgenson JT (1998) Mass-and density-dependent reproductive success and reproductive costs in a capital breeder. Am Nat 152:367–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Grüebler MU, Naer-Daenzer B (2008) Postfledging parental effort in barn swallows: evidence for a trade-off in the allocation of time between broods. Anim Behav 75:1877–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hahn DC (1981) Asynchronous hatching in the laughing gull - cutting losses and reducing rivalry. Anim Behav 29:421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamel S, Côté SD, Festa-Bianchet M (2010) Maternal characteristics and environment affect the costs of reproduction in female mountain goats. Ecology 91:2034–2043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton WD (1966) The moulding of senescence by natural selection. J Theor Biol 12:12–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hildebrandt B, Schaub M (2017) Growth and mortality patterns in asynchronously hatched Eurasian Hoopoe Upupa epops nestlings. Ibis in pressGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffmann J, Postma E, Schaub M (2015) Factors influencing double brooding in Eurasian Hoopoes Upupa epops. Ibis 157:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmes RT, Sherry TW, Marra PP, Petit KE (1992) Multiple brooding and productivity of a neotropical migrant, the black-throated bluewarbler (Dendroica caerulescens), in an unfragmented temperate forest. Auk 109:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kellner K (2015) A wrapper around ‘rjags’ to streamline ‘JAGS’ analyses. R package version 1(3):7Google Scholar
  28. Kéry M, Schaub M (2012) Bayesian population analysis using WinBUGS. A hierarchical perspective. Academic Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. King R, Morgan BJT, Gimenez O, Brooks SP (2009) Bayesian analysis of population ecology. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirkwood TBL, Rose MR (1991) Evolution of senescence—late survival sacrifiiced for reproduction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Sci 332:15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1991.0028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kölliker M (2007) Benefits and costs of earwig (Forficula auricularia) family life. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1489–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemaître JF, Berger V, Bonenfant C, Douhard M, Gamelon M, Plard F, Gaillard JM (2015) Early-late life trade-offs and the evolution of ageing in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 282:20150209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lessells CM, McNamara JM (2012) Sexual conflict over parental investment in repeated bouts: negotiation reduces overall care. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liker A, Székely T (2005) Mortality costs of sexual selection and parental care in natural populations of birds. Evolution 59:890–897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Martín-Vivaldi M, Palomino JJ, Soler M, Soler JJ (1999) Determinants of reproductive success in the Hoopoe Upupa epops, a hole-nesting non-passerine bird with asynchronous hatching. Bird Study 46:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merilä J, Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB (2001) Explaining stasis: microevolutionary studies in natural populations. Genetica 112–113:199–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Michener GR, Locklear L (1990) Differential costs of reproductive effort for male and female Richardson’s ground squirrels. Ecology 71:855–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Møller AP (1992) Nest boxes and the scientific rigour of experimental studies. Oikos 63:309–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Monaghan P, Nager RG (1997) Why don’t birds lay more eggs? Trends Ecol Evol 12:270–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nur N (1988) The cost of reproduction in birds—an examination of the evidence. Ardea 76:155–168Google Scholar
  42. Parejo D, Danchin E (2006) Brood size manipulation affects frequency of second clutches in the blue tit. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plard F, Gaillard JM, Coulson T, Hewison AJM, Delorme D, Warnant C, Bonenfant C (2014) Mismatch between birth date and vegetation phenology slows the demography of roe deer. PLoS Biol 12:e1001828CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Plard F, Schindler S, Arlettaz R, Schaub M (2017) Sex-specific heterogeneity in fixed morphological traits influences individual fitness in a monogamous bird population. Am Nat. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.61cf7
  45. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling. In: Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd International workshop on distributed statistical computing (DSC 2003), vol 124. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  46. Queller DC (1997) Why do females care more than males? Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1555–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Core Team R (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  48. Ricklefs RE (1965) Brood reduction in the curve-billed trasher. Condor 67:505–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson KD, Rotenberry JT (1991) Clutch size and reproductive success of house wrens rearing natural and manipulated broods. Auk 108:277–284Google Scholar
  50. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories : theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryser S, Guillod N, Bottini C, Arlettaz R, Jacot A (2016) Sex-specific food provisioning patterns by parents in the asynchronously hatching European hoopoe. Anim Behav 117:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santos ESA, Nakagawa S (2012) The costs of parental care: a meta-analysis of the trade-off between parental effort and survival in birds. J Evol Biol 25:1911–1917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Schaub M, Reichlin TS, Abadi F, Kéry M, Jenni L, Arlettaz R (2012) The demographic drivers of local population dynamics in two rare migratory birds. Oecologia 168:97–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Siefferman L, Hill GE (2008) Sex-specific costs of reproduction in Eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis. Ibis 150:32–39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  56. Sydeman WJ, Eddy JO (1995) Repeatability in laying date and its relationship to individual quality for common murres. Condor 97:1048–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tavecchia G, Coulson T, Morgan BJT, Pemberton JM, Pilkington JC, Gulland FMD, Clutton-Brock TH (2005) Predictors of reproductive cost in female Soay sheep. J Anim Ecol 74:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tinbergen JM (1987) Costs of reproduction in the great tit: intraseasonal costs associated with brood size. Ardea 75:111–122Google Scholar
  59. Tschumi M, Schaub M, Arlettaz R (2014) Territory occupancy and parental quality as proxies for spatial prioritization of conservation areas. PLoS One 9:e97679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. van de Pol M, Verhulst S (2006) Age-dependent traits: a new statistical model to separate within- and between-individual effects. Am Nat 167:766–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Verhulst S (1998) Multiple breeding in the great tit, II. The costs of rearing a second clutch. Funct Ecol 12:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Visser ME, Both C (2005) Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:2561–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weladji RB, Loison A, Gaillard JM, Holand Ø, Mysterud A, Yoccoz NG, Nieminen M, Stenseth NC (2008) Heterogeneity in individual quality overrides costs of reproduction in female reindeer. Oecologia 156:237–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:697–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Williams TD, Fowler MA (2015) Individual variation in workload during parental care: can we detect a physiological signature of quality or cost of reproduction? J Ornithol 156:S441–S451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson AJ, Nussey DH (2010) What is individual quality? An evolutionary perspective. Trends Ecol Evol 25:207–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floriane Plard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raphaël Arlettaz
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Schaub
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Ornithological InstituteSempachSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Conservation Biology, Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Swiss Ornithological InstituteSionSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations