Comparative Breeding Biology of Three Insectivorous Songbirds in Dutch Dune Grasslands

Oosten, H.H. van

doi:10.5253/arde.v104i3.a2

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are ground foraging birds with a main distribution in habitats consisting of sparse ground vegetation, being generalists feeding on a range of, mainly, arthropods (primary diet consisting of prey items belonging to Coleoptera , Hymenoptera , Lepidoptera , Orthoptera , Hemiptera , Diptera , Araneae ; Cramp, ). For feeding nestlings, they rely to a large extent on insect larvae (frequently Lepidoptera , Diptera , Coleoptera ; Cramp, ; van Oosten, ; D. Arlt & T. Pärt, unpublished data), and food has been shown to be a limiting factor for wheatear fitness (Seward, Beale, Gilbert, Jones, & Thomas, ). We use data from a long‐term population study of wheatears (20 years, 1993–2012) breeding in a heterogeneous agricultural landscape in southern central Sweden (59°50′N, 17°50′E), where they occupy a mosaic of farmland habitats (pastures, farmyards, crop fields, unmanaged grassland; Arlt, Forslund, Jeppsson, & Pärt, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Species and Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Marked reduction in demographic rates and reduced fitness advantage for early breeding is not linked to reduced thermal matching of breeding time

Arlt

Pärt

2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Warmer springs may cause animals to become mistimed if advances of spring timing, including available resources and of timing of breeding occur at different speed. We used thermal sums (cumulative sum of degree days) during spring to describe the thermal progression (timing) of spring and investigate its relationship to breeding phenology and demography of a long‐distant migrant bird, the northern wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe L.). We first compare 20‐year trends in spring timing, breeding time, selection for breeding time, and annual demographic rates. We then explicitly test whether annual variation in selection for breeding time and demographic rates associates with the degree of phenological matching between breeding time and thermal progression of spring. Both thermal progression of spring and breeding time of wheatears advanced in time during the study period. But despite breeding on average 7 days earlier with respect to date, wheatears bred about 4 days later with respect to thermal spring progression. Over the same time period, selection for breeding time changed from distinct within‐season advantage of breeding early to no or very weak advantage. Furthermore, demographic rates (nest success, fledgling production, recruitment, adult survival) and nestling weight declined markedly by 16%–79%. Those temporal trends suggest that a reduced degree of phenological matching may affect within‐season fitness advantage of early breeding and population demographic rates. In contrast, when we investigate links based on annual variation, we find no significant relationship between either demographic rates or fitness advantage of early breeding with annual variation in the degree of phenological matching. Our results show that corresponding temporal trends in phenological matching, selection for breeding time and demographic rates are inconclusive evidence for demographic effects of changed phenological matching. Instead, we suggest that the trends in selection for breeding time and demographic rates are due to a general deterioration of the breeding environment.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Species and Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marked reduction in demographic rates and reduced fitness advantage for early breeding is not linked to reduced thermal matching of breeding time

Arlt

Pärt

2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Harvey (1986) mentioned beetle larvae rather than adults as prey for pseudoscorpions. In nature, beetle adults are probably mainly predated by larger vertebrate predators (O'Connor et al, 2019; Oosten, 2016; Petracci, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthropod food webs predicted from body size ratios are improved by incorporating prey defensive properties

Walle

Logghe

Haas

et al. 2023

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trophic interactions are often deduced from body size differences, assuming that predators prefer prey smaller than themselves because larger prey are more difficult to subdue. This has mainly been confirmed in aquatic ecosystems, but rarely in terrestrial ecosystems, especially in arthropods. Our goal was to validate whether body size ratios can predict trophic interactions in a terrestrial, plant‐associated arthropod community and whether predator hunting strategy and prey taxonomy could explain additional variation. We conducted feeding trials with arthropods from marram grass in coastal dunes to test whether two individuals, of the same or different species, would predate each other. From the trial results, we constructed one of the most complete, empirically derived food webs for terrestrial arthropods associated with a single plant species. We contrasted this empirical food web with a theoretical web based on body size ratios, activity period, microhabitat, and expert knowledge. In our feeding trials, predator–prey interactions were indeed largely size‐based. Moreover, the theoretical and empirically based food webs converged well for both predator and prey species. However, predator hunting strategy, and especially prey taxonomy improved predictions of predation. Well‐defended taxa, such as hard‐bodied beetles, were less frequently consumed than expected based on their body size. For instance, a beetle of average size (measuring 4 mm) is 38% less vulnerable than another average arthropod with the same length. Body size ratios predict trophic interactions among plant‐associated arthropods fairly well. However, traits such as hunting strategy and anti‐predator defences can explain why certain trophic interactions do not adhere to size‐based rules. Feeding trials can generate insights into multiple traits underlying real‐life trophic interactions among arthropods.

show abstract

“…Meadow Pipits (adult body mass c. 17 g) are ground foraging insectivores which breed at temperate and boreal latitudes from Greenland to Western Siberia. They lay 3–5 eggs, 2–3 times annually in open nests built on the ground (Hötker & Sudfeldt 1982, van Oosten 2016). Young stay in the nest for about 12–13 days (Glutz von Blotzheim & Bauer 1985) and reach independence on average 13 days after fledging (Hötker 1982).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Provisioning and Body Mass of Nestling Meadow Pipits and Cuckoos

Oosten¹

2023

Ardea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus are obligate brood parasites, laying eggs in nests of other species. Cuckoo nestlings are often thought to be insatiable, compared to host broods. However, in Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus and a few other species, cuckoo nestlings are fed at most only as frequently as a host brood. To add to the small body of knowledge on feeding frequencies and body mass development of Cuckoo nestlings, I studied Cuckoos using another host, the Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis, in the Dutch dunes (2019–2021). By filming feeding parents (hosts) I determined the provisioning frequency for broods of Pipits and for nestling Cuckoos. I found that nestling Cuckoos receive on average fewer feeds per hour than broods of Meadow Pipits. Furthermore, overall Cuckoos received as many feeds during their 22-day nestling period as a brood of Pipits during their 13 days in the nest. At 13 days of age (day 1 is the day of hatching), the single Cuckoo was as heavy as a brood of four Meadow Pipits. At 22 days, the maximum weights of the nestling Cuckoos were greater than the Meadow Pipit broods and varied between 91 and 105 g. Thus, although Cuckoos are being fed less frequently, young Cuckoos are heavier at fledging than a whole brood of Pipits. This could be because Cuckoos are fed larger prey. Alternatively, Cuckoos may require less food because their thermoregulatory costs could be smaller: they have almost black skin which absorbs solar radiation efficiently, do not have to compete with siblings in the nest and, once older and feathered, have a smaller surface-to-volume ratio than a Pipit brood of four nestlings.

show abstract

Comparative Breeding Biology of Three Insectivorous Songbirds in Dutch Dune Grasslands

Cited by 6 publications

References 54 publications

Marked reduction in demographic rates and reduced fitness advantage for early breeding is not linked to reduced thermal matching of breeding time

Marked reduction in demographic rates and reduced fitness advantage for early breeding is not linked to reduced thermal matching of breeding time

Arthropod food webs predicted from body size ratios are improved by incorporating prey defensive properties

Food Provisioning and Body Mass of Nestling Meadow Pipits and Cuckoos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About