Like mother like nest: similarity in microbial communities of adult female Pied Flycatchers and their nests

Abstract

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Microbial relationships between birds and nesting environments are complex and remain poorly understood. Past studies have focused on between-nest variation in egg/chick bacterial profiles with little attention given to the microbial relationships between adult birds and their nests. Moreover, very little microbial research has included mycology despite fungi being prevalent in nesting environments and important correlates of fitness in chicks. In this study, we identified microbes associated with feathers, skin and nests of Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca, an internationally-declining migrant songbird. From 75 samples, we isolated 50 bacterial OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units; dominated by Enterococcus, Sanguibacter, Pseduomonas) and 63 fungal OTUs (dominated by Penicillium, Aspergillus), many of which had not previously been isolated from birds. Although females had significantly higher non-haemolytic bacterial OTU richness and males significantly higher fungal OTU richness, there was considerable diversity in actual OTUs isolated and thus there was no "typical" female, male, or nest microbial profile. Interestingly though, we show for the first time that the microflora of individual females is significantly more similar the microflora of her own nest than the site-level average of all nests. This suggests microbes are shared within female-nest pairs such that microbial communities start to converge. This is probably a two-way interaction as gut/skin microbes were isolated from nests and plant/soil microbes were isolated from females. Convergence was not seen for males, which probably reflects the role of the female as sole nest builder and egg incubator in this species. We discuss these findings in relation to microbial transfer pathways and avian nesting behaviour. The avian origins of some nest microbes, and species-specific differences in material used to construct nests, means that it is not surprising that there is considerable interspecific variation in nest microflora. This has been demonstrated in direct comparative studies by Goodenough and Stallwood (2010) and Peralta-Sánchez et al (2012), and is also evident by comparing single-species studies by...

Dynamics of Gut Microbiota Diversity During the Early Development of an Avian Host: Evidence From a Cross-Foster Experiment

“…Variations in nest material composition, size, and weight have been found within great tits populations ( Álvarez et al, 2013 ; Lambrechts et al, 2017 ), which result in differences in the bacterial communities associated to the nests ( Goodenough and Stallwood, 2010 ; Brandl et al, 2014 ) or nest boxes ( Goodenough and Stallwood, 2011 ). These bacteria in turn are then likely to colonize the skin ( Gonzalez-Braojos et al, 2015 ), feathers ( Leclaire et al, 2015 ), and gut (through preening for instance, see Kulkarni and Heeb, 2007 for plumage-gut transmission) of the birds ( Goodenough et al, 2017 ; van Veelen et al, 2017 ). These three main factors (parental effects, siblings, nest environment) are not exclusive and may all contribute to various extents to the rearing environment influence we observed in this study.…”

Plumage microbiota covaries with the major histocompatibility complex in blue petrels

“…Neck, dorsal and ventral feathers are in direct contact with soil and may thus be more prone to environmental contamination than preen feathers, which are surrounded by large body feathers. Accordingly, ventral feathers of dark‐eyed juncos ( Junco hyemalis ) host a high diversity of bacteria coming from the soil and phyllosphere (Dille, Rogers, & Schneegurt, ), and in incubating female pied flycatchers ( Ficedula hypoleuca ), the bacterial community of abdominal feathers converges with that of the nest (Goodenough et al, ). In blue petrels, ventral and dorsal feathers host a high abundance of Psychrobacter, which have commonly been isolated from cold and saline habitats (Bowman, Cavanagh, Austin, & Sanderson, ; Rodrigues et al, ).…”

“…We detected differences between males and females in preen, ventral and neck feather microbiota. Sex differences in feather microbiota have been detected in several passerines, including the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), the pied flycatcher and the great tit (Parus major), where they have been attributed to sex differences in the time spent in the nest (Goodenough et al, 2017;Møller, Czirjak, & Heeb, 2009;Saag et al, 2011). In blue petrels, males and females share parental care and no major difference in their ecology has been described (Chaurand & Weimerskirch, 1994a, 1994b.…”

Understanding immune function as a pace of life trait requires environmental context

“…Microbes are everywhere, not only in the environment surrounding the animal, but also on and in the animal. This realization makes the distinction between animal and surroundings fade: animal and surroundings become a continuum (Ruiz-Rodriguez et al 2014 ; Avena et al 2016 ; Lemieux-Labonte et al 2016 ; Goodenough et al 2017 ; van Veelen et al 2017 ). The microbial ecology of the environment presents an immunobiotic pressure within which the bird (including its associated microbes) operates (the immunobiome; Horrocks et al 2011a ).…”