Search

It is generally assumed that larger juveniles are more physiologically mature, hence their overall condition and subsequent performance are higher.Some taxa face extreme workload transitions during development (e.g. nest departure in birds), which may select for non‐linear growth profiles that decouple relationships between body size and physiological state, making the links between metrics of development (e.g. body mass) and juvenile performance uncertain.We manipulated perceived mass in European starlings approaching fledging using 4.0 g weighted backpacks, measuring subsequent growth trajectories (mass, wing length) and physiological state (aerobic capacity, energy state, oxidative status) to test whether body size and physiology are coupled during a non‐linear developmental phase (pre‐fledging mass recession). Nanotag radio transmitters were then used to track post‐fledging performance (activity, activity‐slope, dispersal).Weighted nestlings had greater pre‐fledging mass recession and marginally reduced wing growth when compared to controls. Consequently, weighted birds had lower body mass at fledging, while also displaying markers of oxidative stress (increased reactive oxygen metabolites), yet aerobic capacity and energy state were equal between treatment groups.Previously weighted birds showed no correlation between fledgling state (body size, physiology) and subsequent performance. However, control fledglings that had decreased mass recession and greater wing growth prior to fledging dispersed earlier, while longer wings at fledging were associated with more rapid increases in post‐fledging activity (activity‐slope). In addition, control fledglings with lower haemoglobin also dispersed earlier, while increased reactive oxygen metabolites were associated with decreased activity levels. Body mass and energy state were unrelated to any metric of post‐fledging performance.Our data suggest mass‐independent development of some physiological traits in species with non‐linear growth profiles, potentially with a context‐dependent oxidative cost, and that physiology may predict some measures of post‐fledging performance not captured by body size. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has long been recognized that mass loss during breeding could be adaptive (e.g., by ameliorating the costs of increased parental activity). However, many studies still commonly interpret mass loss as evidence of "stress" or a cost of reproduction (i.e., a negative effect of high workload during chick provisioning). Despite several studies reporting evidence in support of both hypotheses, the ecological and/or life‐history contexts under which mass loss may be viewed as a "cost" or an adaptive strategy are still unclear. Here, we used a long‐term dataset from a breeding population of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) to investigate natural annual and individual variation in body mass and mass loss and to test whether mass loss during chick rearing represents a phenotypically plastic trait that varies predictably in relation to ecological context and individual quality. While there was significant annual variation in incubation mass, chick‐rearing mass, and mass change, there were no systematic relationships between mass loss and current breeding success or future fecundity and survival. In addition, we found no evidence of intra‐annual repeatability of mass loss between first and second broods (=.00) but moderate interannual repeatability of mass loss (R =.61) during first broods, suggesting differences in mass loss under different selective pressures. However, we found no covariation between residual intra‐individual variation in mass loss for first broods and other reproductive or life‐history traits. We therefore found no support for the idea that mass loss reflects "reproductive stress" in our system: there were no negative relationships between mass loss and either current or future reproduction and survival (local return rate). Our results are consistent with mass loss being an individually plastic trait, with individuals using mass loss to "level the playing field" and individually optimize reproductive effort and fitness within their specific ecological context and relative to their individual quality for a given breeding attempt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]