Jihen Boukhriss, Slaheddine Selmi. 2019: Drivers of nest survival rate in a southern Tunisian population of Laughing Doves (Spilopelia senegalensis). Avian Research, 10(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0183-4
Citation:
Jihen Boukhriss, Slaheddine Selmi. 2019: Drivers of nest survival rate in a southern Tunisian population of Laughing Doves (Spilopelia senegalensis). Avian Research, 10(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0183-4
Jihen Boukhriss, Slaheddine Selmi. 2019: Drivers of nest survival rate in a southern Tunisian population of Laughing Doves (Spilopelia senegalensis). Avian Research, 10(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0183-4
Citation:
Jihen Boukhriss, Slaheddine Selmi. 2019: Drivers of nest survival rate in a southern Tunisian population of Laughing Doves (Spilopelia senegalensis). Avian Research, 10(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0183-4
Investigating the ecological factors and processes shaping nest survival is of great importance for assessing the breeding success of bird populations and understanding their spatio-temporal dynamics. Here,this question is addressed for the Laughing Dove (Spilopelia senegalensis),an expanding Afro-tropical bird in the Tunisian oasis habitat.
Methods
This study took place in Kettana oasis,in south-eastern Tunisia. Natural Laughing Dove nests were searched for and monitored by means of regular visits,from the discovery date until the end of the breeding attempt (i.e. fledging or failure). Data were then used to investigate the relevance of laying date,nest age (days after clutch initiation),nest height and vegetation structure in the close nest tree environment as predictors of daily nest survival rate,using logistic-exposure models that accounted for heterogeneity in monitoring period among the studied nests. Models including different combinations of covariates were ranked according to their AICc scores,and the model-averaging technique was used for the assessment of the effects of covariates on daily nest survival rate.
Results
Vegetation structure in the close nest tree environment and nest age provided important predictors of daily nest survival rate,whereas neither nest height nor laying date showed significant effects. Daily nest survival rate was negatively associated with the presence of date palm trees in the close nest tree environment,but it was positively related to nest age. Daily nest survival rate was higher during the post-hatching stage than during the pre-hatching stage.
Conclusions
Nests placed on fruit trees close to clumps of palm trees suffered higher predation risks compared to those placed on fruit trees situated far from palm trees. This is probably because palm tree clumps provided refuges for nest predators,notably the Black Rat (Rattus rattus) which has been reported to be the main nest predator in the oasis habitat. The predatory activity of this rodent seemed more directed against eggs than nestlings,which may explain the observed increase in daily survival rate with nest age.
If there is gradual loss of feathers during the annual cycle following the complete molt, we should expect a gradual reduction over time. Brodkorb (1985) reported that house sparrows Passer domesticus loose 11.5% of their feathers from winter to summer, although the data were cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Hence these data do not allow separation of phenotypic plasticity from selective disappearance. Here I propose predictions that would help discriminate between alternative explanations for seasonal change in the number of feathers. If individuals with more feathers do better in terms of insulation than individuals with few feathers, we should expect an increase in the number of feathers during fall and winter as temperatures fall. If feathers provided protection against predators by allowing for escape, we should expect an increase in the number of feathers over time because individuals that have lost feathers due to predation were more likely to subsequently be captured by a predator or die from insufficient insulation. If the sole advantage of more feathers was simply to provide better insulation, we should expect isometry. If there were relatively more feathers on small species due to their high surface to volume ratio, we should expect negative allometry for the number of feathers. If the total mass of feathers showed isometry, we should expect that the number of feathers and the mean mass of feathers should show isometry.
The objectives of this study were to (1) estimate the allometry of number, total mass of the plumage and mean mass of feathers and (2) to model changes in the number of feathers during the annual cycle to better understand the temporal patterns of feather loss. The number of feathers should reach a maximum at the end of molt, when all feathers including missing ones have been replaced, the only exception being feather loss at the stage of molt. Any subsequent loss of feathers following molt should result in a reduction in the total number of feathers. In contrast, a subsequent increase in the number of feathers later during the year would only be possible if individuals with more feathers survived better than individuals with fewer feathers. Alternatively, individuals may grow more feathers during fall and winter although there is no empirical evidence so far for such seasonal growth of feathers. Thus, a seasonal increase in the number of feathers would represent an estimate of the selective advantage of having more feathers with individuals with few feathers disappearing from the population. The data used for this study mainly derived from Wetmore (1936), who pioneered the study of abundance of feathers on birds.
Methods
Data
Data on the number of feathers and their total mass were extracted from Wetmore (1936) combined with smaller samples from Staebler (1941), Brodkrob (1955) and Markus (1965). Although the mass of different types of feathers would have been useful, no such information was available in the sources consulted here.
I extracted information on body mass from Dunning (2008). Migration distance was estimated as the mean of the northernmost and southernmost latitudes during the breeding season minus the mean of the northernmost and southernmost latitudes during winter relying on Cramp and Perrins (1977-1994) and Poole et al. (1993-2002). I also used northernmost and southernmost latitudes during the breeding season and northernmost and southernmost latitudes during winter to test for possible latitudinal effects. These tests were restricted to North American species to avoid problems of differences in latitudinal effects on climate among continents. The species investigated here generally molt in late summer-early fall (Cramp and Perrins 1977-1994; Poole et al. 1993-2002). Therefore, I related the total number of feathers to time since molt estimated as the number of months since August. All data are reported in Additional file 1: Table S1.
Statistical analyses
I log10-transformed body mass, total number of feathers, mass of all feathers, mean mass of feathers and migration distance to achieve normally distributed frequency distributions.
I analyzed allometric relationships between the total mass of all feathers, the total number of feathers and the mean mass of feathers, respectively, in relation to body mass using log10-transformed variables while including species as a random effect to account for differences in sample size among species. I tested whether the allometric relationships were isometric or negative or positive allometric by testing with t-tests whether allometry coefficients differed significantly from unity.
I developed general linear mixed models with species as a random effect thereby controlling for differences in sample size among species while body mass, time since molt and migration distance were fixed factors. Both a linear and a quadratic effect of time since molt were entered into the models to account for non-linear effects of relative time. Furthermore, I included sex and northernmost and southernmost breeding and wintering latitude in these general linear mixed models with species as a random effect thereby controlling for differences in sample size among species while body mass, time since molt and migration distance were fixed factors. Finally, I tested for phylogenetic effects in a general linear mixed model with species and genus as random effects controlling for differences in sample size among species while body mass, time since molt and migration distance were fixed factors. A phylogenetic effect would imply a significant effect of genus. All analyses were made with JMP (SAS 2012).
Results
A total of 91% of the variance in the number of feathers was due to differences among species with the remaining 9% of the variance occurring within species (F=9.42, d.f. = 84, 75, r2=0.91, p < 0.0001). The allometric relationships for the number of feathers, the mass of the plumage and the mean mass of feathers are reported in Table 1. The total mass of all feathers increased isometrically with body mass since the allometry coefficient did not differ significantly from one (t=0.77, d.f. = 74.46, p=0.45). The total number of feathers showed negative allometry (Figure 1A), with an allometry coefficient less than one (t=24.47, d.f. = 85.64, p < 0.001). The average mass of individual feathers likewise increased with body mass showing negative allometry (Figure 1B; Table 2), and the allometry coefficient was less than one (t=5.27, d.f. = 73.1, p < 0.001).
Table
1.
Allometry of mass of all feathers, number of feathers, and mean mass per feather
Variable
F
d.f.
p
Estimate
SE
Log mass of all feathers
516.80
1, 74.46
< 0.0001
0.972
0.043
Log no. feathers
165.02
1, 89.46
< 0.0001
0.266
0.030
Log mean mass of individual feathers
305.24
1, 73.1
< 0.0001
0.768
0.044
The random effect of species for log mass of feathers was 0.0034, 95% CI=-0.0002, 0.0070 accounting for 24% of the variance. The random effect of species for log number of feathers was 0.0047, 95% CI=0.0021, 0.0073 accounting for 55% of the variance. The random effect of species for log mass of each feather was 0.0039, 95% CI=-0.00007, 0.0078 accounting for 26% of the variance.
Figure
1.
(A) The number of feathers in different birds in relation to body mass (g), and (B) the mean mass of feathers in different birds in relation to body mass (g).
The relationship between the number of feathers, total mass of feathers and mean mass of feathers and log migration distance was significantly negative for number of feathers, but not for mass of feathers or mean mass of feathers (no. feathers: F=8.60, d.f. = 1, 81, p=0.044, estimate (SE)=-0.075 (0.026); mass of feathers: F=0.00, d.f. = 1, 60.74, p=0.98; mean mass of feathers: F=0.14, d.f. = 1, 60.67, p=0.71). Thus species that migrated longer distances had fewer feathers for a given body size. The total number of feathers was significantly related to time since molt and time since molt squared (Table 2). This implies that the number of feathers reached a peak halfway through the year after molt (Figure 2). In addition there was a significant effect of body mass with more feathers in larger species (Table 2).
Figure
2.
Total number of feathers in relation to time (months since August) in different birds. Note the curvilinear relationship.
The predicted number of feathers at the end of the molting period from the model in Table 2 was 1259, increasing to 1950 half a year later (a rate of increase by 3.8 feathers per day), and subsequently falling to 1350 by the start of the molting period 12 months later (a rate of loss of 3.3 feathers per day).
There was no significant effect of sex in the analysis presented in Table 2 (F=0.42, d.f. = 1, 142, p=0.52). Furthermore, there were no significant effects of northernmost or southernmost latitude during breeding or during winter (breeding northern latitude: F=1.07, d.f. = 1, 63.33, p=0.30; breeding southern latitude: F=1.49, d.f. = 1, 84.81, p=0.23; winter northern latitude: F=0.22, d.f. = 1, 68.87, p=0.64; winter southern latitude: F=0.29, d.f. = 1, 87.44, p=0.59). Finally, there was no effect of genus on the number of feathers in a mixed model (variance ratio=0.088, 95% confidence intervals -0.00038, 0.00066, percentage variance explained=6.23).
Discussion
The number of feathers showed negative allometry while the mass of feathers showed isometry. The number of feathers showed a hump-shaped relationship with time since molt in August, first showing an increase during fall and winter followed by a decrease during spring and summer. This pattern could be explained as a consequence of selection against feather loss during fall and winter followed by a steady loss during spring and summer. Here I have only analyzed patterns of abundance of feathers and feather loss in a sample of mainly passerine and related birds. Thus the results provided here do not necessarily apply to other orders of birds.
Feathers play an important role in thermoregulation. Here I have shown that the total mass of feathers increased isometrically with body mass. In contrast, the total number of feathers and the mean mass of feathers showed negative allometry implying that small species have relatively more and light feathers. These latter patterns are consistent with expectations from the higher surface to volume ratio of smaller species. Furthermore, they suggest that smaller species have relatively many small feathers.
I did not find a linear decline in the number of feathers from the molting period onwards, raising questions about gain and loss of feathers. Feathers emerge during the annual (or bi-annual) molt, and once the molting period is finished, there is little or no feather growth with the exception of feathers being replaced if completely lost. Such replacement is used as a research tool in studies of ptilochronology (Grubb 2006). An alternative explanation for an increase in the number of feathers during fall and winter is that birds grow more feathers during fall and winter although there is no empirical evidence for such seasonal growth. Hence there appears to be no means by which the number of feathers can increase during fall and winter unless individuals that have already lost feathers are selected against. Here, I have indirectly shown selection for individuals with a larger number of feathers in fall because the number of feathers increased with time during fall, followed by gradual loss of feathers in spring as the importance of thermoregulation diminished when ambient temperatures increased. There was a negative association between the number of feathers and migration distance, while there was no significant relationship between the mass of feathers and the mean mass of individual feathers, respectively, and migration distance. Thus migrants had fewer feathers than residents as expected if the cost of thermoregulation is higher in resident species at higher latitudes. In contrast, there were no significant associations between the number of feathers and northernmost or southernmost latitudinal range during breeding or winter. Gradual loss of feathers in spring and summer when ambient temperatures increase allows for the maintenance of high body temperature in the face of normal activity. Such feathers lost during spring and summer may be used as nest material and provide efficient insulation for developing embryos and nestlings.
The present study raises a number of perspectives for the future. First, are the patterns in non-passerines similar to what has been described here? Second, do tropical species have fewer feathers than temperate species as a consequence of their higher ambient temperature? Third, is feather loss and number of feathers related to susceptibility to predation? Fourth, what is the mechanism that maintains the balance between difficulty of loss of feathers to maintain flying ability and insulation and ease of loss when attacked by a predator? Finally, how does this balance change as feathers become worn and lost prior to molt?
Conclusion
Larger species of birds have more and heavier feathers, and these feathers are lost at a rate that indicates selection against feather loss in fall and winter, while the rate of feather loss remains constant during spring and summer with the number of feathers reaching its lowest level in summer just before the start of molt.
Additional file
Additional file 1: Table S1. Species, genus, migration distance (° latitude), month, sex, number of feathers, mass of feathers (g), body mass (g), number of months after molt, northernmost breeding latitude, southernmost breeding latitude, northernmost winter latitude, and southernmost winter latitude in different species of birds. See Methods for further details.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Boukhriss J, Selmi S. Nidification et succès reproducteur de la Tourterelle Maillée Streptopelia senegalensis dans une oasis du sud Tunisien. Alauda. 2009;77:187-92.
Boukhriss J, Selmi S. Risk-taking by incubating Rufous bush robins (Cercotrichas galactotes): season-dependent incubation stage effect. J Ethol. 2010;28:331-7.
Boukhriss J, Selmi S. Effects of temporal factors, nesting microhabitat and nest position on the survival of passerine nests in a Tunisian oasis habitat. Ostrich. 2018;89:321-8.
Boukhriss J, Selmi S, Nouira S. Bird nest predation in a southern Tunisian oasis habitat: no evidence of "edge effect". Acta Oecol. 2009;35:174-81.
Brahmia H, Zeraoula A, Bensouilah T, Bouslama Z, Houhamdi M. Breeding biology of sympatric Laughing Streptopelia senegalensis and Turtle Streptopelia turtur Dove: a comparative study in northeast Algeria. Zool Ecol. 2015;25:220-6.
Brunton DH. The effects of nesting stage, sex, and type of predator on parental defense by killdeer (Charadrius vociferous): testing models of avian parental defence. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1990;26:181-90.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inferences: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
Colombelli-Négrel D, Kleindorfer S. Nest height, nest concealment, and predator type predict nest predation in superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus). Ecol Res. 2009;24:921-8.
Cox WA, Thompson FR II, Faaborg J. Species and temporal factors affect predator-specific rates of nest predation for forest songbirds in the Midwest. Auk. 2012;129:147-55.
Cresswell W. Predation in bird populations. J Ornithol. 2011;152:251-63.
Dion N, Hobson KA, Lariviere S. Interactive effects of vegetation and predators on the success of natural and simulated nests of grassland songbirds. Condor. 2000;102:629-34.
Filliater TS, Breitwisch R, Nealen PM. Predation on northern cardinal nests: does choice of nest site matter? Condor. 1994;96:761-8.
Guan H, Wen Y, Wang P, Lv L, Xu J, Li J. Seasonal increase of nest height of the silver-throated tit (Aegithalos glaucogularis): can it reduce predation risk? Avian Res. 2018;9:42.
Hammond RL. Daily survival rate of nests is lower in fruiting than non-fruiting tree species for a Hawaiian forest bird, the
elepaio (Chasiempis sclateri). Wilson J Ornithol. 2016;128:584-92.
Husby M, Hoset KS. Seasonal variation in nest predation rates in boreal forests. J Ornithol. 2018;159:975-84.
Isenmann P, Gaultier T, El Hili A, Azafzaf H, Dlensi H, Smart M. Oiseaux de Tunisie-birds of Tunisia. Paris: SEOF Editions; 2005.
Johnson DH, Shaffer TL. Estimating nest success: when Mayfield wins. Auk. 1990;107:595-600.
Johnson RG, Temple SA. Nest predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. J Wildl Manag. 1990;54:106-11.
Latif QS, Heath SK, Rotenberry JT. How avian nest site selection responds to predation risk: testing an 'adaptive peak hypothesis'. J Anim Ecol. 2012;81:127-38.
Ludwig M, Schlinkert H, Holzschuh A, Fischer Ch, Scherber Ch, Trnka A, et al. Landscape-moderated bird nest predation in hedges and forest edges. Acta Oecol. 2012;45:50-6.
Ma L, Zhang J, Liu J, Yang C, Liang W, Møller AP. Adaptation or ecological trap? Altered nest-site selection by reed parrotbills after an extreme flood. Avian Res. 2019;10:2.
Manolis JC, Anderson DE, Cuthbert FJ. Uncertain nest fates in songbird studies and variation in Mayfield estimation. Auk. 2000;117:615-26.
Martin T. Interaction of nest predation and food limitation in reproductive strategies. Curr Ornithol. 1992;9:163-97.
Martin TE, Roper JJ. Nest predation and nest-site selection of a western population of the hermit thrush. Condor. 1988;90:51-7.
Martin TE, Scott J, Menge C. Nest predation increase with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2000;267:2287-93.
Mayfield HF. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull. 1975;87:456-66.
Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ. Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol. 1988;63:167-87.
Ricklefs RE. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithson Contrib Zool. 1969;9:1-48.
Roos S. Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia. 2002;133:608-15.
Roper JJ, Goldstein RR. A test of the Skutch hypothesis: does activity at nests increase nest predation risk? J Avian Biol. 1997;28:111-6.
Ruffino L, Vidal E. Early colonization of Mediterranean islands by Rattus rattus: a review of zooarcheological data. Biol Invasions. 2010;12:2389-94.
SAS Institute. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8. Cary: SAS Institute; 1998.
Schaub R, Mumme RL, Woolfenden E. Predation on the eggs and nestlings of Florida scrub jays. Auk. 1992;109:585-93.
Selmi S. Données nouvelles sur les avifaunes des oasis du sud tunisien. Alauda. 2000;68:201-12.
Selmi S. Nidification et succès reproducteur du Merle noir Turdus merula dans les oasis du sud Tunisien. Alauda. 2004;72:23-31.
Shaffer TL. A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk. 2004;121:526-40.
Skutch AF. Do tropical birds rear as many young as they can nourish? Ibis. 1949;91:430-55.
Sockman KW. Variation in life-history traits and nest-site selection affects risk of nest predation in the California Gnatcatcher. Auk. 1997;114:324-32.
Sperry JH, Peak RG, Cimprich DA, Weatherhead PJ. Snake activity affects seasonal variation in nest predation risk for birds. J Avian Biol. 2008;39:379-83.
Whittingham MJ, Evans KL. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in agricultural landscapes. Ibis. 2004;146:210-20.
Winter M, Johnson DH, Shaffer JA. Variability in vegetation effects on density and nesting success of grassland birds. J Wildl Manag. 2005;69:185-97.
Morteza Banisaffar, Afshin Alizadeh Shabani. Factors influencing nest site selection of the Laughing Dove (Spilopelia senegalensis) in an urban area in Karaj, Iran. Ornis Hungarica, 2024, 32(2): 117.
DOI:10.2478/orhu-2024-0026
2.
Nilgün Yapıcı, Ali Erdoğan. The expansive Laughing Dove (Spilopelia senegalensis), an all-year breeder in southern Turkey. Zoology in the Middle East, 2023, 69(1): 1.
DOI:10.1080/09397140.2023.2172861
3.
Foued Hamza, Asma Kahli, Mohammed Almalki, et al. Distance from industrial complex, urban area cover, and habitat structure combine to predict richness of breeding birds in southeastern Tunisian oases. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29(22): 33191.
DOI:10.1007/s11356-021-18051-8
4.
Emily L Weiser. Fully accounting for nest age reduces bias when quantifying nest survival. Ornithological Applications, 2021, 123(3)
DOI:10.1093/ornithapp/duab030
5.
Foued Hamza, Saâd Hanane. The effect of microhabitat features, anthropogenic pressure and spatial structure on bird diversity in southern Tunisian agroecosystems. Annals of Applied Biology, 2021, 179(2): 195.
DOI:10.1111/aab.12690
6.
Daniel F. Perrella, Paulo V. Q. Zima, Mercival R. Francisco. Nest Site Selection Along Forest-Streams by Two Forest-Dwelling Neotropical Passerines. Acta Ornithologica, 2021, 55(2)
DOI:10.3161/00016454AO2020.55.2.005
7.
Nasrine Saâd, Saâd Hanane, Kamilia Farhi, et al. Nest Age as Predictor of Nest Survival in Three Sympatric Dove Species Breeding in a Mediterranean Arid Agroecosystem. Ardea, 2020, 108(2)
DOI:10.5253/arde.v108i2.a5
Table
1.
Allometry of mass of all feathers, number of feathers, and mean mass per feather
Variable
F
d.f.
p
Estimate
SE
Log mass of all feathers
516.80
1, 74.46
< 0.0001
0.972
0.043
Log no. feathers
165.02
1, 89.46
< 0.0001
0.266
0.030
Log mean mass of individual feathers
305.24
1, 73.1
< 0.0001
0.768
0.044
The random effect of species for log mass of feathers was 0.0034, 95% CI=-0.0002, 0.0070 accounting for 24% of the variance. The random effect of species for log number of feathers was 0.0047, 95% CI=0.0021, 0.0073 accounting for 55% of the variance. The random effect of species for log mass of each feather was 0.0039, 95% CI=-0.00007, 0.0078 accounting for 26% of the variance.
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds