Search

In many forest passerine bird species, rapid climate warming has led to a phenological mismatch between the period of maximum nestlings' food requirements and the period of maximum food availability (seasonal caterpillar biomass peak) due to an insufficient advancement of the birds' laying dates. The initiation of laying is preceded by the development of the gonads, which in birds are regressed outside the breeding season. Increasing day length in late winter and early spring triggers a cascade of hormones which induces gonadal development. Since day length is not altered by climate change, one potential restriction to advancing laying date is the seasonal timing of gonadal development. To assess the importance of gonadal growth for timing of reproduction we experimentally manipulated the timing of gonadal development. We show that the growth of the largest follicle of captive female great tits (Parus major) increased after being exposed to just a single long day in winter (20 hours of light followed by 4 hours darkness). We then photostimulated wild female great tits from two study areas in a field experiment in spring for a single day and determined their laying date. These populations differed in the availability of food allowing us to test if food availability in combination with photostimulation affected egg laying dates. Despite an expected difference in the onset of gonadal growth, laying dates of photostimulated females did not differ from control females in both populations. These results suggest that wild great tits are not restricted in the advancement of their laying date by limited gonadal development.

Seasonal timing of reproduction and the number of clutches produced per season are two key avian life-history traits with major fitness consequences. Female condition may play an important role in these decisions. In mammals, body condition and leptin levels are correlated. In birds, the role of leptin remains unclear. We did two experiments where we implanted female great tits with a pellet releasing leptin evenly for 14 days, to manipulate their perceived body condition, or a placebo pellet. In the first experiment where females were implanted when feeding their first brood offspring we found, surprisingly, that placebo treated females were more likely to initiate a second brood compared to leptin treated females. Only one second brood fledged two chicks while five were deserted late in the incubation stage or when the first egg hatched. No difference was found in female or male return rate or in recruitment rate of fledglings of the first brood, possibly due to the desertion of the second broods. In our study population, where there is selection for early egg laying, earlier timing of reproduction might be hampered by food availability and thus nutritional state of the female before egg laying. We therefore implanted similar leptin pellets three weeks before the expected start of egg laying in an attempt to manipulate the laying dates of first clutches. However, leptin treated females did not initiate egg laying earlier compared to placebo treated females, suggesting that other variables than the perceived body condition play a major role in the timing of reproduction. Also, leptin treatment did not affect body mass, basal metabolic rate or feeding rates in captive females. Manipulating life history decisions using experimental protocols which do not alter individuals' energy balance are crucial in understanding the trade-off between costs and benefits of life history decisions.