“…Within forest, our results showed that nestlings raised in nestboxes located in patches with immature vegetation differed little in size and weight from those raised in patches with mature vegetation, confirming results of in Blue Tits, and of Sánchez et al (2007) in Great Tits. Therefore, it seems that possible differences in food availability among mature and immature vegetation patches were not a limiting factor for raising nestlings in these forests.…”
Section: Female and Nestling Traitssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…For example, Wilkin et al (2007) found that laying date was earlier as the number of oaks around Great Tit nests increased, arguing that food availability was the underlaying factor. Also, to the best of our knowledge, the only study relating breeding traits to habitat structure in Great Tits was published by Sánchez et al (2007), who found that nestlings raised in nestboxes surrounded by mature vegetation tended to be in better condition. Van Noordwijk et al (1981) nestboxes within each forest were placed at similar altitude (at different altitude between forests), a possible effect of temperature on vegetation phenology and therefore on food availability would be negligible.…”
Section: Laying Datementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, it is also known that, among tits (Paridae), small changes in habitat structure can have profound effects on reproduction and condition (Otter et al 2007, Wilkin et al 2007, making this species a good model for evaluating the extent to which reproductive traits are affected by habitat features (e.g. Sánchez et al 2007, Wilkin et al 2007). The effects of forest type on breeding traits are known since a long time for this species.…”
BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
“…Within forest, our results showed that nestlings raised in nestboxes located in patches with immature vegetation differed little in size and weight from those raised in patches with mature vegetation, confirming results of in Blue Tits, and of Sánchez et al (2007) in Great Tits. Therefore, it seems that possible differences in food availability among mature and immature vegetation patches were not a limiting factor for raising nestlings in these forests.…”
Section: Female and Nestling Traitssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…For example, Wilkin et al (2007) found that laying date was earlier as the number of oaks around Great Tit nests increased, arguing that food availability was the underlaying factor. Also, to the best of our knowledge, the only study relating breeding traits to habitat structure in Great Tits was published by Sánchez et al (2007), who found that nestlings raised in nestboxes surrounded by mature vegetation tended to be in better condition. Van Noordwijk et al (1981) nestboxes within each forest were placed at similar altitude (at different altitude between forests), a possible effect of temperature on vegetation phenology and therefore on food availability would be negligible.…”
Section: Laying Datementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, it is also known that, among tits (Paridae), small changes in habitat structure can have profound effects on reproduction and condition (Otter et al 2007, Wilkin et al 2007, making this species a good model for evaluating the extent to which reproductive traits are affected by habitat features (e.g. Sánchez et al 2007, Wilkin et al 2007). The effects of forest type on breeding traits are known since a long time for this species.…”
BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
“…This approach has been used previously in avian studies to quantify the effect of ectoparasites on breeding success (e.g. RICHNER et al 1993) and to determine the influence of habitat on breeding success (SÁNCHEZ et al 2007). …”
“…For instance, the absence of suitable vectors might explain the low incidence of blood parasites in species living in marine/saline habitats (Super and van Riper, 1995; Figuerola, 1999; Mendes et al 2005). Also, environmental characteristics around the nests, which may affect the abundance of vectors, seem to determine blood parasite prevalence in avian populations (Sánchez et al 2007; Wood et al 2007; Ortego and Cordero, 2010).…”
The effect of insect vectors on avian exposure to infection by pathogens remains poorly studied. Here, we used an insect repellent treatment to reduce the number of blood-sucking flying insects in blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus nests and examined its effect on nestling health status measured as body mass, nestling phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) response and blood parasite prevalence. We found that (i) the insect repellent treatment significantly reduced the number of blood-sucking flying insects in nests and (ii) the number of blood-sucking flying insects had a significant effect on the prevalence of the blood parasite Trypanosoma independently of the treatment. In addition, we found support for an adverse effect of parasite infections on nestling PHA response. Nestlings infected by Trypanosoma mounted a weaker response against PHA than non-parasitized ones. In addition, the number of blowflies in the nest was negatively associated with nestling PHA response. Overall, we found support for the hypothesis that blood-sucking flying insects attacking nestlings increase their exposure to parasite infections. Our results further substantiate the adverse effect of parasites on nestling condition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.