Per Alström, Canwei Xia, Pamela C Rasmussen, Urban Olsson, Bo Dai, Jian Zhao, Paul J Leader, Geoff J Carey, Lu Dong, Tianlong Cai, Paul I Holt, Hung Le Manh, Gang Song, Yang Liu, Yanyun Zhang, Fumin Lei. 2015: Integrative taxonomy of the Russet Bush Warbler Locustella mandelli complex reveals a new species from central China. Avian Research, 6(1): 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0016-z
Citation:
Per Alström, Canwei Xia, Pamela C Rasmussen, Urban Olsson, Bo Dai, Jian Zhao, Paul J Leader, Geoff J Carey, Lu Dong, Tianlong Cai, Paul I Holt, Hung Le Manh, Gang Song, Yang Liu, Yanyun Zhang, Fumin Lei. 2015: Integrative taxonomy of the Russet Bush Warbler Locustella mandelli complex reveals a new species from central China. Avian Research, 6(1): 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0016-z
Per Alström, Canwei Xia, Pamela C Rasmussen, Urban Olsson, Bo Dai, Jian Zhao, Paul J Leader, Geoff J Carey, Lu Dong, Tianlong Cai, Paul I Holt, Hung Le Manh, Gang Song, Yang Liu, Yanyun Zhang, Fumin Lei. 2015: Integrative taxonomy of the Russet Bush Warbler Locustella mandelli complex reveals a new species from central China. Avian Research, 6(1): 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0016-z
Citation:
Per Alström, Canwei Xia, Pamela C Rasmussen, Urban Olsson, Bo Dai, Jian Zhao, Paul J Leader, Geoff J Carey, Lu Dong, Tianlong Cai, Paul I Holt, Hung Le Manh, Gang Song, Yang Liu, Yanyun Zhang, Fumin Lei. 2015: Integrative taxonomy of the Russet Bush Warbler Locustella mandelli complex reveals a new species from central China. Avian Research, 6(1): 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0016-z
The Russet Bush Warbler Locustella (previously Bradypterus) mandelli complex occurs in mountains in the eastern Himalayas, southern China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The taxonomy has been debated, with one (L. seebohmi) to four (L. seebohmi, L. mandelli, L. montis and L. timorensis) species having been recognised.
Methods
We used an integrative approach, incorporating analyses of morphology, vocalizations and a molecular marker, to re-evaluate species limits in the L. mandelli complex.
Results
We found that central Chinese L. mandelli differed from those from India through northern Southeast Asia to southeast China in plumage, morphometrics and song. All were easily classified by song, and (wing + culmen)/tail ratio overlapped only marginally. Both groups were reciprocally monophyletic in a mitochondrial cytochrome b (cytb) gene tree, with a mean divergence of 1.0 ± 0.2%. They were sympatric and mostly altitudinally segregated in the breeding season in southern Sichuan province. We found that the Mt Victoria (western Myanmar) population differed vocally from other L. mandelli, but no specimens are available. Taiwan Bush Warbler L. alishanensis was sister to the L. mandelli complex, with the most divergent song. Plumage, vocal and cytb evidence supported the distinctness of the south Vietnamese L. mandelli idonea. The Timor Bush Warbler L. timorensis, Javan Bush Warbler L. montis and Benguet Bush Warbler L. seebohmi differed distinctly in plumage, but among-population song variation in L. montis exceeded the differences between some populations of these taxa, and mean pairwise cytb divergences were only 0.5-0.9%. We also found that some L. montis populations differed morphologically.
Conclusions
We conclude that the central Chinese population of Russet Bush Warbler represents a new species, which we describe herein, breeding at mid elevations in Sichuan, Shaanxi, Hubei, Hunan and Guizhou provinces. The taxonomic status of the other allopatric populations is less clear. However, as they differ to a degree comparable with that of the sympatric L. mandelli and the new species, we elevate L. idonea to species status, and retain L. seebohmi and L. montis as separate species, the latter with timorensis as a subspecies. Further research should focus on different populations of L. montis and the Mt Victoria population of L. mandelli.
Flight performance is a fundamental factor for fitness in ecological and evolutionary contexts (Webster et al. 2002; Bauer and Hoye 2014). According to the theory of migration syndrome (Bauchinger et al. 2005; Hedenström 2008), migratory birds have evolved a suite of modifications in wing morphology and kinematics in terms of energy consumption for long-journey flight than residents (Hedenström 2008; van Oorschot et al. 2016). For example, migratory birds not only have highly efficient wings (more prolonged and narrower wings, lower wing loading) but also exhibit lowered wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude for continuous flight avoiding additional parasite drag relative to residents (Minias et al. 2015; Grilli et al. 2017). Given that it is difficult to directly measure these parameters under the natural conditions (Zhao et al. 2017; Horton et al. 2018), little information is available on how migratory birds adjust airspeed and mechanical power relative to residents.
Considering that power consumption follows a U-shaped relationship with flight speed, fly at a speed too low or high than usual will demand an extra amount of energy and lower energy efficiency (Alerstam et al. 2007; Alerstam 2011). Theoretically, small migratory birds should fly at speed with the maximum range speed (Vmr) and maximize the efficiency of flight to meet the strategy of energy-minimization during the flight (Hedenström 2002; Tobalske et al. 2003). By contrast, residents are less constrained by the energy demand of long-distance flight, and a higher maximum speed (Vmax) can improve chasing and escaping ability (Clemente and Wilson 2016, Fig. 1).
Figure
1.
The relationship between airspeed and the aerodynamic power requirement during flight (Pennycuick 2008; Klein et al. 2015). At minimum speed (Vmin) and maximum speed (Vmax), the required aerodynamic power equals the maximum available power output. At minimum power speed (Vmp) is when the required aerodynamic power is minimal (the speed for maximum endurance). At maximum range speed (Vmr) is when the cost of transport is minimal (the speed for maximum range)
The maximum load-lifting capacity experiment (as imposed via asymptotic loading) is a quantifiable way to determine maximum flight performance and estimate maximum power available during the flight in volant animals (Marden 1987; Altshuler et al. 2010). By measuring flight-related morphology, kinematics, and maximum weight lifted during maximum load-lifting flight trials, we can calculate aerodynamic power output with aerodynamic model and estimate flight speed (Vmr and Vmax). Specifically, Vmr is calculated with flight-related morphology and optimized kinematics; Vmax is the maximal flight speed supported by maximal available output power in load-lifting flight trials (Pennycuick 2008). The minimal flight energy cost at a certain distance (Distance × Pfight/Vmr, i.e., power cost per 100 km per unit body mass) can provide a framework to investigate the airborne energy consumption of transport. Measuring the vertical speed, acceleration during load-free flight trials, and power margin (the excess available aerodynamic power for vertical ascent) can evaluate the maneuverability of birds (Altshuler et al. 2004).
Passerines (Passeriformes, Aves) are typically featured with flapping flight that have higher power requirements than those birds with other flight modes (e.g., soaring, gliding). Therefore, passerines are under more selective pressures of optimizing flight speed and energy consumption (Gavrilov 2011; Vincze et al. 2018). To test the hypothesis that migrants would enhance the energy efficiency at Vmr, and residents would have high Vmax to improve maneuverability (Chernetsov 2012). We compared the differences in flight speed and energy efficiency between two passerines with a resident species (Passer montanus, Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP) and a migratory species (Fringilla montifringilla, Brambling, BRAM). We predicted that (1) BRAM would have a higher Vmr and a better flight efficiency to meet the time- and energy- minimization of migration (Alerstam 2011); (2) TRSP would flight at a higher Vmax to achieve better maneuverability for local competition and anti-predation, with a lower flight efficiency (Askew and Ellerby 2007).
Methods
Study species
The BRAM is a small passerine migrant which can migrate as far as 3600 km (Fang et al. 2008; see distribution map in Fig. 2) with comparable body size (~21 g), similar diets (seeds and invertebrates), and habitats (forests, shrublands, and artificial; Snow and Perrins 1998; Summers-Smith 2016) as the TRSP (common resident species with broad distribution range, Sun et al. 2017; Li et al. 2019).
Figure
2.
Breeding and non-breeding distribution ranges of Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM; extracted from BirdLife International 2019)
The TRSP (n=13) and BRAM (n=8) were captured opportunistically using mist nets from March 13 to April 1, 2017, at the campus of Hebei Normal University (37°59.88ʹN, 114°31.18ʹE, elevation: 72 m), Shijiazhuang, China. Within 30 min post-capture, body mass was measured with a portable digital balance for each bird to the nearest 0.01 g and transferred to the university laboratory for determining their maximum flight capacity within 2‒4 h.
Maximum load-lifting assay and wing kinematics
Each bird was evaluated for asymptotic load-lifting capacity in a rectangular flight chamber using a maximum load-lifting approach described in detail by Sun et al. (2016) and Wang et al. (2019). In brief, one high-speed video camera (GCP100BAC, JVC Kenwood Corporation, Yokohama, Japan; operated at 250 frames-1) placed on the top of the chamber was used to obtain wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude (Additional file 1: Movie S1). The other synchronized camera (operated at 50 frames-1) positioned laterally at a distance of 80 cm to the chamber was used to record the beads remaining on the chamber floor during the maximum load-lifting flight (Additional file 2: Movie S2).
The maximum lifted weight was calculated by the total weight of beads subtraction to the weight of remaining beads on the chamber floor when peak lifting was achieved. The sum of bodyweight gave the maximum load (total lifted load) and the maximum lifted weight. A time-averaged wingbeat frequency was determined by the interaction frequency between wing motions and the camera filming speed over the same measurement period. Wing stroke amplitude was derived from video images in which the wings were located at the extreme positions of the wingbeat within each bout of final 0.5 s of maximum load-lifting. Multiple ascending flights were recorded for each bird (mean of 4.1 flights), and the maximum weight lifted within the series was assumed to indicate the limit to load-lifting of flight performance. All birds were released after completing all measurements and flight trails (5‒6 h post-capture).
Flight-related morphology
Following load-lifting experiments, flight-related morphological traits were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm using Vernier caliper (Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan). The right-wing of each bird was photographed for measurements of the total wing area S (given by twice the area of the right-wing) and wing length R using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). The aspect ratio is given by 4R2/S. Wing loading was calculated by dividing the body weight by S, and maximum wing loading was provided by dividing the total maximum load by S. Mass-corrected maximum load was calculated by dividing the total maximum load by body weight.
Flight speed and energy efficiency
We measured the vertical speed for each individual based on video records of load-free flight trials in the chamber. The whole distance from the floor to the up limits of the flight trials was evenly divided by four or five parts with a length of 20 cm for each part. The maximum vertical speed and acceleration were calculated as the highest achieved speed and acceleration among all parts for each individual. Maximum power (maximum available muscle power to support the flight) during the maximum load-lifting flight was calculated using Ellington's equation (Ellington 1984) following the method described by Askew and Ellerby (2007). Theoretical Vmr, Vmax, parasite drag, Reynolds number, and the airborne energy efficiency of transport at Vmr and Vmax were calculated using computeFlightPerformance functions in "afpt" package for each individual (Klein et al. 2015) in R software (R Core Team 2018). The power margin was calculated as the difference of maximum power and minimum power required to flight as an estimate of maneuverability.
Statistical analysis
The homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene's test of equality of variances before analysis. We implemented independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests to compare all the variables between species. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 21.0 software (IBM, New York, USA). All data are presented as mean±SEM. The significant difference was P < 0.05.
Results
The BRAM and TRSP had a comparable body mass, maximum load, and mass-corrected maximum load. However, BRAM had significantly longer and larger wings, higher aspect ratio, smaller wing loading, lower wingbeat frequency, and stroke amplitude compared with TRSP (Table 1; Fig. 3).
Table
1.
Statistical results of flight-related morphology, load-lifting capacity, flight kinematics, flight speed and energy efficiency between Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM; n=8) and Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP; n=13) in independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests
Type of variable
Variable
t value
P value
Flight-related morphology
Body mass (g)
0.569
0.576
Wing lengtr (mm)
16.69
< 0.001
Wing area (cm2)
6.158
< 0.001
Wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Aspect ratio
5.024
< 0.001
Load-lifting capacity
Maximum load (g)
1.321
0.202
Mass-corrected maximum load
2.040
0.056
Maximum wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Flight kinematics
Wingbeat frequency (Hz)
6.627
< 0.001
Wing stroke amplitude (deg)
2.691
0.015
Flight performance
Maximum vertical speed (m/s)
0.625
0.540
Maximum vertical acceleration (m/s2)
0.171
0.866
Power margin
0.641
0.529
Maximum range speed (Vmr, m/s)
8.298
< 0.001
Maximum speed (Vmax, m/s)
8.176
< 0.001
Flight energy efficiency
Power at Vmr (W)a
5.914
< 0.001
Power at Vmax (W)
6.266
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmr (W/kg)
6.669
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmax (W/kg)
7.228
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmr (N)
5.972
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmax (N)
5.817
< 0.001
Reynolds number at Vmr
3.336
0.003
Reynolds number at Vmax
3.411
0.003
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmr (Wh/kg)a
7.901
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmax (Wh/kg)
9.544
< 0.001
Italic values indicate significance of P value (P < 0.05) aVariables were compared by the Mann–Whitney U test
Figure
3.
Comparisons of a wing length (mm), b wing area (cm2), c aspect ratio and wing loading (kg/m2) and d wingbeat frequency (Hz) and wing stroke amplitude (degree) during the maximum load-lifting flight of Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP, n=13) and Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM, n=8). All variables differed significantly between species. All values depicted for each species are the means with standard error, * represents P < 0.05. Images of each species were taken from https://www.hbw.com/
The BRAM and TRSP had a comparable maximum vertical speed and acceleration, and power margin (Table 1). However, BRAM had a significantly lower Vmr and Vmax, power, parasitic drag, Reynolds number, and mass-corrected power cost per 100 km in both Vmr and Vmax compared with those of TRSP (Table 1; Figs. 4 and 5). Furthermore, the BRAM had lower flight power, mass-corrected flight power, and mass-corrected flight power per 100 km relative to TRSP at low- and middle-speed ranges (Fig. 5).
Figure
4.
Comparisons of a flight speed (m/s), b flight power (W), c parasite drag (N), d Reynolds number, e mass-corrected power (W/kg), and f mass-corrected power cost per 100 km (Wh/kg) at maximum range speed (Vmr) and maximum speed (Vmax) of Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP, n=13) and Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM, n=8). All values depicted for each species are the means with standard error, * represents P < 0.05
Figure
5.
Comparisons of a flight power (N), b mass-corrected power (W/kg), and c mass-corrected power cost per 100 km (Wh/kg) at a range of possible speed for Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP, n=13) and Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM, n=8). All points represented individuals; polynomial curves are used to fit the trends of each species
By identifying the differences in flight-related morphology, load-lifting capacity, kinematics, and theoretical flight speed and energy efficiency between BRAM and TRSP, we found a significantly lowered Vmr and Vmax in BRAM relative to TRSP due to reduced power availability (Fig. 4). The trade-off between time and energy cost during migration is influenced by body size (Zhao et al. 2017), season (Nilsson et al. 2013), distance (Schmaljohann 2018), etc. Our results suggested that migrant passerines may be favored by a higher flight efficiency to achieve an energy- minimization strategy rather than a time-minimization strategy, while residents may be favored by a higher Vmax to achieve better maneuverability. Furthermore, the flight energy efficiency was higher in BRAM with lower power requirements (or available power) when flying at any given speed relative to the TRSP, especially at low- and middle-speed ranges (Fig. 5). More importantly, our results found that it is a dilemma for birds to enhance flight speed and efficiency. Therefore, the flight ability of small passerine migrants was more constrained by energy rather than time (lower flight speed and higher energy efficiency).
The wing morphology and behavior of the wing motion of birds are crucial components of powered flight performance and energy efficiency (Alerstam 2011). Morphologically, BRAM had larger and longer wings, and lower wing loading relative to TRSP. Our results confirm that the avian wing has evolved to adapt to their various lifestyles (Dudley 1991; Lockwood 1998). In comparison, migrants had high- efficiency wings for long-journey flight, and residents had high-maneuverability wings for escaping, foraging, etc. (Minias et al. 2015; Grilli et al. 2017). Lowered wingbeat frequency and wing stroke amplitude for BRAM relative to TRSP can be an adaptation for optimizing energy efficiency since aerodynamic power output (Ellington 1984; Pennycuick 2008) and metabolic rates (Bishop et al. 2015) are declining superlinearly with the wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude. Lowered wing loading of BRAM would require a reduced wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude to stay airborne, which could be one of the reasons that BRAM showed higher efficiency of powered flight for long-distance migration. Our results provided evidence that the migratory passerines exhibit a higher flight energy efficiency, especially at a lower speed range, and this functional improvement is evolved through the combined adaptive features of wing morphology and kinematics.
Reduction in the flight speed resulted in decreased parasite drag, which could prevent extra flight energy consumption (Pennycuick 2008). Similarly, we found the BRAM exhibited reduced Vmr and Vmax, and their corresponding parasite drag, Reynolds number, and efficiency of transport (mass-corrected power cost per 100 km) relative to the TRSP. The BRAM had a higher energy efficiency of flight, especially at a low- and middle- speed range (Fig. 5), which may be an ecological strategy for reducing extra energy cost during taking-off and escaping flight. By contrast, the TRSP with significantly higher power may be essential to enhance the flight speed range (Askew and Ellerby 2007), since the residents cannot mitigate the competition and predation through seasonal migration. Therefore, migrant passerines enhanced flight energy efficiency not only through lowering flight speed but energy efficiency at a given speed, resulting from a suite of alternations in function-based morphology and kinematics (mentioned above) relative to residents. Our results further suggest that migrants would increase their flight efficiency without compromising flight maneuverability during takeoff since the vertical speed and power margin are comparable between migrants and residents. However, lower maximum speed for the migrants may also decrease the success rates of escape in extreme conditions compared with residents (Clemente and Wilson 2016).
Conclusions
In summary, our results indicate that migrants exhibit the feature of reduced flight power with the lower cost for flight energy and maneuverability. On the other hand, residents exhibit the opposite direction of increasing flight power that is critical for enhancing maximum flight speed and power to widen speed range for predator escaping and local competition. Our findings support the notion that migratory passerines have acquired a better airborne energy efficiency through a series of adaptive changes on flight-related morphology and kinematics. However, these morphological and kinematic adaptations are still not enough to increase both flight speed and efficiency concurrently. Migrants are under the selection of balancing time and energy consumption of the long-distance migration during their long-distance migration (energy seems more vital for BRAM). Further investigations are needed to include multiple avian taxonomies for exploring potential phylogenetic effects and their metabolic and molecular alternations to expand our understanding of evolution in the efficiency of airborne travel.
We appreciate the help of Mr. Guanqun Kou for sample and video collection.
Authors' contributions
DL and YWu conceived the ideas and designed the study; YWang, YY, ZP, YS, and JL conducted the experiment and collected the data; YWang carried out the statistical analyses with the help of CJ; DL, YWu, and GN wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
Our additional materials are available online.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All protocols were approved by the Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee (no. 2013-6) and by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (HEBTU2013-7) of Hebei Normal University, China, and were carried out under the auspices of scientific collecting permits issued by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (Forestry Bureau) of Hebei Province, China.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ali S, Ripley SD (1973) Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan, vol 8. London, Oxford
Aliabadian M, Kaboli M, Nijman V, Vences M (2009) Molecular identification of birds: performance of distance-based DNA barcoding in three genes to delimit parapatric species. PLoS One 4:e4119
Alström P, Rasmussen PC, Olsson U, Sundberg P (2008) Species delimitation based on multiple criteria: the spotted bush warbler Bradypterus thoracicus complex (Aves: Megaluridae). Zool J Linn Soc-Lond 154:291-307
Alström P, Fregin S, Norman JA, Ericson PGP, Christidis L, Olsson U (2011) Multilocus analysis of a taxonomically densely sampled dataset reveal extensive non-monophyly in the avian family Locustellidae. Mol Phylogenet Evol 58:513-526
Alström P, Olsson U, Lei F (2013) A review of the recent advances in the systematics of the avian superfamily Sylvioidea. Chinese Birds 4:99-131
Bairlein F, Alström P, Aymí R, Clement P, Dyrcz A, Gargallo G, Hawkins F, Madge S, Pearson D, Svensson L (2006) Family Sylviidae (Warblers). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Christie DA (eds) Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol 12. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 492-709
Bioacoustics Research Program (2011) Raven Pro: Interactive sound analysis software (version 1.4). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, New York
Charif RA, Waack AM, Strickman LM (2010) Raven Pro 1.4 user's manual. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, New York
Cheng T-h (1987) A Synopsis to the Avifauna of China. Parey Scientific, Hamburg
Collar N (2005) Island Thrush (Turdus poliocephalus). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Christie DA, de Juana E (eds) Handbook of the Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 649-651
Deignan HG (1963) Check-list of the birds of Thailand. Bull US Nat Mus 226: 263
Delacour J (1943) The bush-warblers of the genera Cettia and Bradypterus, with notes on allied genera and species. Ibis 85:27-40
Delacour J (1952) The specific grouping of the bush warblers Bradypterus luteoventris, Bradypterus montis and Bradypterus seebohmi. Ibis 94:362-363
Dickinson EC (ed) (2003) The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, 3rd edn. Christopher helm, London
Dickinson EC, Rasmussen PC, Round PD, Rozendaal FG (2000) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 1. A review of the russet bush-warbler Bradypterus seebohmi (Ogilvie-Grant, 1895). Zool Verhand (Leiden) 331: 11-64
Drovetski SV, Zink RM, Fadeev IV, Nesterov EV, Koblik YA, Red'kin YA, Rohwer S (2004) Mitochondrial phylogeny of Locustella and related genera. J Avian Biol 35:105-110
Drummond AJ, Rambaut A (2007) BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol 7: 214
Drummond AJ, Rambaut A (2014) BEAST (version 1.8.1).
Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A (2006) Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol 4:e88
Fregin S, Haase M, Olsson U, Alström P (2012) Pitfalls in comparisons of genetic distances: a case study of the avian family Acrocephalidae. Mol Phylogenet Evol 62:319-328
Gill F, Donsker D (2014) IOC world bird list (version 3.3). . Accessed 26 Sep 2014
Gu X, Fu Y, Li W (1995) Maximum likelihood estimation of the heterogeneity of substitution rate among nucleotide sites. Mol Biol Evol 12:546-557
Hasegawa M, Kishino Y, Yano T (1985) Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 22:160-174
Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17:754-755
Huelsenbeck JP, Larget B, Alfaro ME (2004) Bayesian phylogenetic model selection using reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Mol Biol Evol 21:1123-1133
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2012) Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. Zootaxa 3450: 1-7
Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 90:773-795
Kennerley P, Pearson D (2010) Reed and Bush Warblers. Christopher Helm, London
Lanave C, Preparata C, Saccone C, Serio G (1984) A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J Mol Evol 20:86-93
Madge SM (2006) Bradypterus Species Accounts. In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Christie DA (eds) Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol 11. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 599-609
Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees in Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), New Orleans, LA, 14 Nov 2010, pp 1-8
Morioka H, Shigeta Y (1993) Generic allocation of the Japanese marsh warbler Megalurus pryeri (Aves: Sylviidae). Bull Nat Sci Mus Tokyo A 19:37-43
Newton MA, Raftery AE (1994) Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J R Stat Soc B 56:3-48
Olsson U, Alström P, Ericson PGP, Sundberg P (2005) Non-monophyletic taxa and cryptic species - evidence from a molecular phylogeny of leaf-warblers (Phylloscopus, Aves). Mol Phylogenet Evol 36:261-276
Posada D (2008a) jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol 25:1253-1256
Posada D (2008b) jModeltest (version 0.1.1).
Rambaut A (2012) FigTree (version 1.4.0).
Rambaut A, Drummond AJ (2009) Tracer (version 1.5).
Rambaut A, Drummond AJ (2014) TreeAnnotator (version 1.8.1).
Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie W (2014) BEAUti (version 1.8.1).
Rasmussen PC, Anderton JC (2012) Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide, 2nd edn. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona
Rasmussen PC, Dickinson EC, Round PD, Rozendaal FG (2000) A new bush-warbler (Sylviidae, Bradypterus) from Taiwan. Auk 117:279-289
Rodríguez J, Oliver L, Marín A, Medina R (1990) The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol 142:485-501
Seebohm H (1881) Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, vol 5. Trustees of the British Museum, London
Sibley CG, Monroe BL Jr (1990) Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University, New Haven
Spierenburg P (2005) Birds in Bhutan: Status and Distribution. Oriental Bird Club, Bedford
Stamatakis A (2006) RAxML-Ⅵ-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688-2690
Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J (2008) A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst Biol 57:758-771
Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725-2729
Tavaré S (1986) Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Lec Math Life Sci 17:57-86
Trainor CR, Verbelen P, Hoste S (2012) Rediscovery of the Timor bush warbler Locustella timorensis on Alor and Timor, Wallacea: clarifying taxonomic affinities, defining habitat and survey recommendations. Bird Conserv Int 22:354-369
Verbelen P, Trainor CR (2012) Rediscovery of the Timor Bush Warbler Locustella (Bradypterus) timorensis on Alor and Timor, Wallacea, Indonesia. BirdingASIA 17:47-48
Wang W, Dai C, Alström P, Zhang C, Qu Y, Li S-H, Yang X, Zhao N, Song G, Lei F (2014) Past hybridization between two East Asian long-tailed tits (Aegithalos bonvaloti and A. fuliginosus). Front Zool 11:40
Watson GE Jr, Traylor MA, Mayr E (1986) Family Sylviidae. In: Mayr E, Cottrell GW (eds) Check-List of Birds of the World, vol 11. Massachusetts, Cambridge, p 299
Weir JT, Schluter D (2008) Calibrating the avian molecular clock. Mol Ecol 17:2321-2328
Xia C, Wang L, Guo D, Wu T, Zhang Y (2011) The new distribution of russet bush warbler (Bradypterus mandelli) and its vocalization analysis. Chn J Zool 46:106-108
Yang Z (1994) Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol 39:306-314
Kou, G., Wang, Y., Ge, S. et al. Moderate mass loss enhances flight performance via alteration of flight kinematics and postures in a passerine bird. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2023, 226(24): jeb245862.
DOI:10.1242/JEB.245862
2.
Kou, G., Wang, Y., Dudley, R. et al. Coping with captivity: takeoff speed and load-lifting capacity are unaffected by substantial changes in body condition for a passerine bird. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2022, 225(14): jeb244642.
DOI:10.1242/jeb.244642
3.
Yong, D.L., Heim, W., Chowdhury, S.U. et al. The State of Migratory Landbirds in the East Asian Flyway: Distributions, Threats, and Conservation Needs. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2021.
DOI:10.3389/fevo.2021.613172
Table
1.
Statistical results of flight-related morphology, load-lifting capacity, flight kinematics, flight speed and energy efficiency between Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM; n=8) and Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP; n=13) in independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests
Type of variable
Variable
t value
P value
Flight-related morphology
Body mass (g)
0.569
0.576
Wing lengtr (mm)
16.69
< 0.001
Wing area (cm2)
6.158
< 0.001
Wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Aspect ratio
5.024
< 0.001
Load-lifting capacity
Maximum load (g)
1.321
0.202
Mass-corrected maximum load
2.040
0.056
Maximum wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Flight kinematics
Wingbeat frequency (Hz)
6.627
< 0.001
Wing stroke amplitude (deg)
2.691
0.015
Flight performance
Maximum vertical speed (m/s)
0.625
0.540
Maximum vertical acceleration (m/s2)
0.171
0.866
Power margin
0.641
0.529
Maximum range speed (Vmr, m/s)
8.298
< 0.001
Maximum speed (Vmax, m/s)
8.176
< 0.001
Flight energy efficiency
Power at Vmr (W)a
5.914
< 0.001
Power at Vmax (W)
6.266
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmr (W/kg)
6.669
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmax (W/kg)
7.228
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmr (N)
5.972
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmax (N)
5.817
< 0.001
Reynolds number at Vmr
3.336
0.003
Reynolds number at Vmax
3.411
0.003
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmr (Wh/kg)a
7.901
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmax (Wh/kg)
9.544
< 0.001
Italic values indicate significance of P value (P < 0.05) aVariables were compared by the Mann–Whitney U test
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds