Although assessing temporal dynamics of populations is crucial for understanding metacommunities, empirical studies have primarily analyzed only static snapshots of communities. Here, we present a holistic view of how species traits and habitat characteristics relate to metacommunity dynamics and use it to test for differences in the spatiotemporal distribution of seasonal bird assemblages.
Methods
We surveyed forest birds in breeding and winter seasons within 36 islands for 9 years. We then grouped birds into four landbird assemblages, selected on the basis of published differences in biology or ecology: winter residents, migratory winter visitors, breeding summer residents, and migratory summer visitors. We estimated dynamic species colonization and extirpation through the 9-year period, and evaluated the associations among island attributes, species attributes and community composition.
Results
Overall, winter and summer residents showed strong associations between composition and habitat structure of the islands. In addition, winter and summer residents on large islands had lower extirpation and turnover than winter and summer visitors. Visitor assemblages showed no significant habitat associations, and in winter had high extirpation rates and small body sizes. By contrast, local extirpation of summer visitors was correlated with local species richness, indicating a likely effect of competition on extirpation.
Conclusions
Our results demonstrated repeated patterns among species composition, bird traits, habitat/island characteristics and observed metacommunity dynamics. Winter and summer residents best matched species sorting and patch dynamics, respectively, due to differences in resource availability and requirements of overwinter survival versus breeding. Summer visitors were consistent with species sorting and winter visitors were randomly distributed, likely because of interactions with resident competitors. Our results highlight that coexisting seasonal migrant and resident assemblages differ in their spatial dynamics, with consequences for relevant conservation and management strategies.
In precocial birds, especially in those where only one sex incubates, egg laying and incubation are important stages of reproductive investment, and may represent critical energy bottlenecks, especially in harsh environments (Wiebe and Martin 1995, 1997, 2000). Incubating individuals must balance the conflict between thermal needs of the developing embryos and their self-maintenance needs by leaving the nest to forage (Wiebe and Martin 2000; Conway and Martin 2000a; Coates and Delehanty 2008). Also, incubating birds have to adjust their incubation rhythms based on physical conditions and environmental factors.
In smaller species, environmental factors have a greater effect on incubation rhythm and smaller birds are thought to have a greater need for food during incubation (Afton 1980). Large-bodied birds have greater energy reserves and can spend more time on the nest, but in periods of stress, small-bodied birds might not have enough nutrient reserves to complete incubation (Gloutney and Clark 1991) and need more time off nests for foraging (Manlove and Hepp 2000; Camfield et al. 2010). Also, birds living in areas with low temperatures have a higher daily energy expenditure, but foraging away from the nest is almost twice as costly as incubating a four-egg clutch (Piersma et al. 2003). Because low ambient temperatures allow eggs to cool quickly, birds might be required to show higher nest attentiveness in cold climates (Chalfoun and Martin 2007). Martin (2002) has shown that colder ambient temperatures can result in higher attentiveness, such as Anna's (Calype anna) and Black-chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) nesting in California, which took longer nest attentiveness than Purple-crowned Fairy (Heliothryx barroti) in the warm lowland tropics of Panama (Vleck 1981).
The Chinese Grouse (Tetrastes sewerzowi) is an endemic bird distributed in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, Yunnan, and Tibet in western China (Sun 2000), along the high mountain conifer forests at altitudes between 2700 and 4200 m on the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. These birds typically experience a decrease in mass during reproduction, which is usually considered to be an indication of reproductive stress (Cucco and Malacarne 1997). The Chinese Grouse is the smallest grouse in the sub-family of Tetraonidae (Sun et al. 2005). On the other hand, nutritious foods are limited in spring, as willows (Salix spp.) are the main food resources for the birds (Zhao et al. 2017), so nutrient constraint possibly exists during the egg-formation and incubation periods (Wang et al. 2010). During the pre-incubation period, the proportion of time allocated for vigilance by male and time for foraging by female Chinese Grouse is the highest recorded among monogamous grouse species (Lou et al. 2017). This probably benefited the female by reducing the danger of predation, increasing her probability of survival, and allowing more time for her to forage for more nutritious food, such as herb leaves and insects, to increase her energy reserves (Lou et al. 2017). Good body condition at the beginning of the breeding season has been associated with large egg volumes and early laying and body mass is positively related to food abundance during the incubation of Wilson's Storm Petrels (Oceanites oceanicus) (Quillfeldt et al. 2006).
How does the Chinese Grouse deal with the cold weather, high altitude, short breeding time, and nutrient stress during the egg-laying and incubation period? In this study, we explored the egg-laying and incubation rhythms of Chinese Grouse and analyzed the strategies Chinese Grouse uses to deal with these disadvantages. We predicted that more feeding during incubation is important for Chinese Grouse reproductive success.
Methods
Study area
We conducted the study during 1999-2016 at the Lianhuashan Nature Reserve (34°45ʹ-35°06ʹN, 103°27ʹ-103°51ʹE) in southern Gansu Province, central China. Our research station was at the altitude of 2850 m, surrounded by forest dominated by fir (Abies fargesii), spruce (Picea asperata), birch (Betula utilis), and many species of willow. The average annual temperature in the reserve is 5.1-6.0 ℃, with recorded extremes of 34.0 ℃ and -27.1 ℃ at an altitude of 2100 m. For more information, see Sun et al. (2003).
Field methods
The nests of Chinese Grouse are located at the bases of fir, spruce, birch and willow trees. Nesting materials are mainly mosses, leaves and dry twigs. Nests were found by locating radio-tracked females, searching paired males' territories or from reports by local people, who received a reward (Sun et al. 2003; Zhao et al. 2018).
We equipped 25 nests with data loggers (Germin Data Loggers LTD, UK, Tiny Talk II) to record the egg temperatures when the females were on and off their nests, when the temperatures were higher and lower, respectively. In 1999, we equipped 4 nests with thermo-sensors fixed at the bottom of the nests, with a cable (length < 3 m) connected to the data loggers. The temperature data recorded in this way were generally lower than the temperature of the egg. However, changes in data logger temperatures should be proportional to those of the eggs, so we could record the nest attendance of the females. In 2000 and 2001, we placed artificial eggs in the center of 16 nests for monitoring both nest attendance and egg temperature. The artificial eggs were from abandoned clutches, and filled with paraffin wax, and thermo-sensors were buried in it (Persson and Göransson 1999). This arrangement did not seem to affect the behaviour of the females, as no females abandoned their nests after we placed the dummy eggs in their nests. We put the thermo-sensors or dummy eggs into the nests as soon as we located them. If the clutch was unfinished, we could record the egg laying intervals. The data loggers were kept dry and covered in plastic boxes. The data loggers were programmed to record temperatures every 6.0 min. In 2010, we monitored 5 nests. The other operations were the same as in 2000, except that the data loggers were programmed to record temperatures every minute. We revisited the nests every 7 days to download the data and restart the loading, mostly without disturbing the hens from the nests. If we disturbed the hens while downloading the data, we excluded the results from that day from the analyses.
The timing and duration of recesses were interpreted from changes in egg (n=21) or nest (n=4) temperatures associated with the departure and return of the females, as shown on the strip charts. Short temperature drops (lasting only one measurement, 6 min) were likely a result of females repositioning themselves on the nest and moving the eggs; they were not considered to be recesses. Four irregular records from three nests were recorded (two at day time from one nest: 186, 1068 min; two at night from two nests: 186, 205 min). All three nests hatched successfully. These were most likely associated with predation attempts and all data from these days were excluded from analyses. We defined the overall incubation constancy as the percentage of the time the females spent on the nests during the entire incubation period. Partial incubation was a less regular form of incubation that can occur from the beginning of egg laying to shortly after clutch completion (Wang and Beissinger 2011). Nests were regarded as successful when at least one egg was hatched. We determined nest age by considering that eggs were laid every other day with a mean incubation period of 28 days for successful nests (Sun et al. 2003). For the unsuccessful nests that had been found during incubation, we speculated nest age as Zhao et al. (2019).
In both 2000 and 2001, one data logger was used to record the forest temperature in our study area during the laying and incubating period. All monitored nests were located throughout the study area, so we selected a nest randomly to record the environment temperature. To avoid disturbing the incubating female, thermo-sensors and data logger were hung on a tree 1.5 m high from the ground and 50 m away from the Chinese Grouse nest. Nest site temperatures might differ from our data logger records. However, as the Chinese Grouse made open nests without much concealment, we assumed that there was not a big difference.
During 2013 to 2016, we monitored 12 nests with infrared video cameras (The Ltl Acorn Ltl-6210 M). With its highly sensitive passive Infra-Red sensor, the camera detects the sudden change of ambient temperature caused by moving animals in a region of interest, triggering the camera to take pictures/videos. Thus when a female moved, we obtained videos. By this means, we knew the exact time that a female left and arrived at a nest. We mounted cameras on trunks about 0.5 m away from the nests. The video lasted 10 s for every triggering and 3 pictures for confirmation. We recorded date, time, and frame number on video images electronically.
Data analysis
Data from nests monitored less than 7 days were not included in calculating the recess rates and incubation constancy. We excluded video footages that were interrupted by camera malfunction, loss of power, or disturbance from changing batteries, memory cards, and long-time recess because of predation. Nineteen samples using the data logger and nine from the video camera were included in our analyses. All recesses occurred from 05:30 to 20:30. Nest constancy was calculated in days, and the average was taken.
We conducted a mixed effects linear model, the daily number of recesses as the dependent variable and year, method, nest age, recess duration as fixed factors, with individual as a random factor. And we used a mixed effects linear model to test how the fixed factors year, method, nest age, hour and number of recesses affected recess duration, with individual as a random factor. There was a correlation between year and method. To exclude the effect of method on year, we separated all data to three groups: datalog6, datalog1 and camera, then reanalyzed. To examine how incubating females adjusted recess timing, we grouped all individuals into these groups: reproduction successful and failed, tracked and untracked. We used t tests to test the difference in incubation patterns between groups. The data were analyzed using the program R. All values were expressed as mean±SD.
Results
We monitored the egg laying of 8 females. Females laid eggs at midday, between 10:59 and 15:45 (time arriving at nest, n=16), except for one female that arrived at the nest at 07:27 and spent 6 h there when laying its sixth egg. The laying time of all six of one female's eggs occurred within two and half hours (12:32-15:11). Females usually laid one egg every 2 days, except for one instance of 3 days. The laying intervals of five females were 49.0±1.3 h (n=18). Females spent variable amounts of time on the nests when laying eggs. Less time was spent when laying the first four eggs (71.3±19.8 min, n=9) than for laying the fifth and sixth eggs (162.8±89.0 min, n=8). Full incubation started in the early morning (6:30-8:30, n=8). Two females started right after laying the sixth egg, five on the next day, and one on the third day.
We included 28 nests of data in our analyses of nest attendance of Chinese Grouse, for a total of 201 days during 1999 to 2001, 62 days in 2010, and 108 days during 2013 to 2016 (Table 1). Based on the 14 females for which we had documented when they started incubating and hatching of the eggs, the incubation period of Chinese Grouse was around 29.8 (28-31) days.
Table
1.
The number of daily recesses and nest constancy of Chinese Grouse females during the incubation period at Lianhuashan Nature Reserve, Gansu, China
Year-female number
Nest age
Number of daily recessesa
Recess duration (min)b
Nest constancy (%)c
Hatched/Failed
Radio-tracked
99-01
2-26
5.36±1.16 (23)
28.93±7.59 (129)
89.16±1.96
H
Y
99-02
5-16
4.83±0.79 (12)
22.84±5.49 (57)
92.31±1.17
F
Y
99-03
18-24
5.57±0.82 (7)
22.76±10.23 (39)
91.19±1.62
H
Y
00-01
22-30
3.56±0.53 (9)
21.48±7.06 (31)
94.72±1.18
H
N
00-02
6-29
5.25±0.61 (24)
18.87±6.66 (126)
93.12±1.16
H
Y
00-03
7-25
4.84±0.96 (19)
20.66±6.67 (92)
93.05±1.22
F
N
00-04
5-28
4.67±0.87 (24)
23.52±7.93 (113)
92.40±1.29
H
Y
00-05
8-21
4.69±0.63 (13)
22.78±7.42 (64)
92.66±1.07
H
Y
00-06
13-25
6.15±0.81 (13)
21.19±6.31 (78)
91.30±1.69
F
Y
00-07
12-19
4.50±0.53 (8)
18.83±4.34 (36)
94.11±0.75
F
N
01-01
8-18
4.36±0.67 (11)
19.38±6.69 (48)
94.13±1.09
F
Y
01-02
15-29
6.07±0.70 (15)
15.9±5.06 (92)
93.39±1.08
H
Y
01-03
10-26
5.19±0.75 (16)
16.36±6.48 (84)
94.11±1.20
F
N
01-04
13-20
4.29±0.49 (7)
22.32±5.06 (25)
93.54±0.57
F
Y
10-01
1-13
4.54±0.66 (13)
21.97±5.48 (59)
93.08±1.26
F
N
10-02
2-23
4.64±0.58 (22)
14.38±4.09 (101)
95.42±0.73
F
Y
10-03
13-20
4.75±0.71 (8)
23.56±8.94 (36)
92.27±1.60
F
Y
10-04
19-27
4.89±0.78 (9)
22.37±7.4 (43)
92.42±0.91
H
Y
10-05
17-26
5.30±0.82 (10)
20.55±5.71 (52)
92.58±1.17
H
N
13-01
2-16
4.41±0.79 (15)
21.09±7.38 (52)
93.29±1.91
H
Y
13-02
7-18
4.45±0.52 (11)
23.6±9.36 (10)
93.08±2.65
F
Y
13-03
15-24
5.18±0.60 (11)
19.86±8.8 (43)
93.02±1.68
H
N
14-01
10-20
4.15±0.69 (11)
18.28±5.78 (39)
94.56±1.48
H
Y
14-02
3-12
5.90±0.88 (10)
18.71±9.61 (45)
92.32±1.76
H
Y
15-01
2-8
4.29±0.49 (7)
17.64±4.93 (28)
94.85±0.86
H
Y
16-01
19-25
6.00±0.76 (7)
18.21±7.56 (29)
92.96±1.29
H
Y
16-02
2-25
6.13±0.85 (24)
16.24±7.51 (109)
93.53±1.81
H
N
16-03
14-25
4.33±0.49 (12)
16.28±4.22 (36)
95.21±0.71
H
Y
a Mean±SD (n), n was days excluding those disturbed by research action and irregular recesses b Mean±SD (n), n was recesses excluding those missing record of female going out or coming back c Mean±SD, n (constancy)=n (number of daily recesses), nest constancy=(1440 min-t (female staying out of nest)/1440 min)×100%
The overall incubation constancy was 92.8±2.0% (n=376 days). The females took 5.0±1.0 (n=376) recesses per day with the average recess length of 20.3±7.7 min (n=1696). Three methods (data log-6 min, data log-1 min and camera) affected neither number of recesses nor recess duration. Recess number and recess duration had a significantly negative relationship (df=367.018, t=-6.016, p < 0.001, Fig. 1b). Time of day significantly affected recess duration (df=1658.666, t=9.948, p < 0.001, Fig. 1a). Recess number increased significantly (df=370.879, t=3.397, p < 0.001, Fig. 1c), but recess duration decreased (df=1391.690, t=-1.781, p=0.075, Fig. 1d) as nest age progressed. Recess duration was also affected by year (data logger-6 min, t=-3.820, p < 0.001; camera, t=-3.426, p < 0.001). Of the 1696 recesses, 34.4% were taken in the crepuscular periods (before 6:30 and after 18:30, Fig. 2). In all 376 monitored days, we recorded 262 (69.7%) dawn recesses and 321 (85.4%) dusk recesses (Fig. 2). Dawn recess duration was shortest (17.9±6.4 min, n=261) and dusk recess duration was longest (25.3±8.3 min, n=185, Fig. 1a).
Figure
1.
Relationship between two measures of incubation behaviour (untransformed) and recess duration (a, b), and between two measures of incubation behaviour and nest age (c, d)
Figure
2.
Chinese Grouse nest recesses distribution in time of day at Lianhuashan Nature Reserve, Gansu, China. Data from data loggers and cameras show same trend
Of the 28 females yielding data on incubation rhythm, 18 females were successful in hatching. Recess duration and number of recesses were significantly different between the successful and unsuccessful females (df=1512, t=3.131, p=0.002 and df=338.771, t=2.863, p=0.005 respectively, Tsuccessful=20.7±8.2 min, Tunsuccessful19.5±6.7 min, Nsuccessful=5.1, Nunsuccessful=4.8). Successful females took more and longer recesses. Twenty of 28 females were followed with transmitters. There was no difference in number of recesses between those that were tracked and those that were not (Ntracked=5.0, Nuntracked=5.1, df=188.791, t=-1.024, p=0.299), however, tracked individuals had longer recess durations (Ttracked=20.8, Tuntracked=19.0, df=1063.200, t=4.591, p < 0.001).
Discussion
In Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus), as in many other ground-nesting precocial birds, the greatest attrition in fecundity is the loss of eggs to predators (Martin et al. 1989). Shorter laying period would reduce the chances of egg predation (Clark and Wilson 1981); however, birds have limited energy reserve in their body and must gain additional energy by feeding, especially for precocial birds, because they produce eggs with more yolk (Carey et al. 1980) and might need more time for egg production. Egg-laying interval is thought to be a balance between egg size, clutch size, and time for laying the eggs (Schubert and Cooke 1993). The Chinese Grouse has the smallest body mass in the grouse sub-family (Tetraoninae). The average mass for the females is 327.4±26.3 g (n=55, Sun et al. 2005). The mass of Chinese Grouse eggs averages 20.5±1.6 (n=165, Sun et al. 2005), yielding egg/body mass ratio of 6.1-6.9%, which is the highest among the grouse (Johnsgard 1983). Thus, Chinese Grouse should be physiologically stressed by egg production. The laying interval we documented was 49 h for the Chinese Grouse, longer than other grouse species, such as Willow Ptarmigan (24 h, Wiebe and Martin 1995), White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus) (26 and 44 h, Wiebe and Martin 1995), Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) (36 h, Watson 1972), Ruffed Grouse (Tetrastes umbellus) (36 h, Bump et al. 1947), and Hazel Grouse (T. bonasia) (31 h, Pynnönen 1954; Semenov-Tyan-Shanskii 1960) (Table 2). The average clutch size of the Chinese Grouse is 6.19 (Sun et al. 2003, first clutch), so the bird needs more than 12 days to lay a clutch. We suggest that the relatively long egg interval in Chinese Grouse is due to relatively high physiological costs of egg production.
Table
2.
Reported reproductive parameters between grouse species
The laying time of Chinese Grouse was concentrated around noon. It is different from Hazel Grouse, which lays their eggs during 04:00-20:00 (Semenov-Tyan-Shanskii 1960) and the ptarmigans, which lay eggs during 07:00-19:00 (Wiebe and Martin 1995). In 11% failed nests, we identified three nest predator species using infrared video cameras: Asian Badger (Meles leucurus) accounting for three nest failures, Hog Badger (Arctonyx collaris) for one nest failure, and Blue-eared Pheasant (Crossoptillon auritum) for one nest failure. Badgers, the main nest predators in our study area were active in the evening-night period, so around noon might be the safest time for the Chinese Grouse to visit their nests. The length of the egg-laying interval (around 48 h) also permitted all eggs to be laid around noon. Partial incubation existed especially in the late period of egg laying. White-tailed Ptarmigan and Spruce Grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) also showed this pattern (McCourt et al. 1973; Giesen and Braun 1979). In anseriforms and galliforms species, incubation starts during the laying period without causing hatching asynchrony (Wang and Beissinger 2011). Partial incubation thus shortens the incubation period and benefits incubating females (Wang and Beissinger 2011).
The incubation period of Chinese Grouse (around 28-31 days) was relatively long compared to Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus, 26 days) Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, 26.5 days) Hazel Grouse (23-27 days) and Spruce Grouse (21-25 days) (Johnsgard 1983) (Table 2). During incubation period, female Chinese Grouse spent on average 92.8% of their time per day on nest, which was lowest in grouse species: Ruffed Grouse (96%, Maxson 1977), White-tailed Ptarmigan (95.7% and 93.9%, Wiebe and Martin 1997), Greater Sage-Grouse (96.1%, Coates and Delehanty 2008) and Hazel Grouse (95%, Semenov-Tyan-Shanskii 1960) (Table 2). The number of daily recesses taken by Chinese Grouse females averaged 5.0, much higher than that of the Hazel Grouse (2.0, Müller 1992), and White-tailed Ptarmigan (3.07, Wiebe and Martin 1997). The average recess duration of Chinese Grouse was 20.25 min, shorter than that of Spruce Grouse (26.4 min, Naylor et al. 1988), Hazel Grouse (33 min, Müller 1992), Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) (35 min), and Ruffed Grouse (20-40 min, Johnsgard 1983) (Table 2). And our result showed the number of recesses was negatively related to recess duration. The incubating females might adjust recess duration to guarantee incubation attendance. Chinese Grouse therefore showed a pattern of a long incubation period with low incubation constancy, and more and shorter recesses.
Theory predicts shorter embryonic periods in species with smaller body size (Martin et al. 2007). However, Martin (2002) found no relationship between body mass and incubation period, and proposed that longer incubation periods were associated with lower attentiveness. Deeming et al. (2006) also believed that nest attentiveness affected egg temperature maintenance, and resulted in incubation period variation. Cartar and Montgomerie (1985) suggested that small-bodied incubators have a low fasting endurance and modified nest attentiveness by adjusting the frequency of recesses. Our results support their proposals. With small body mass, females have less endogenous reserves and more nutritional requirements (Demment and Vansoest 1985; Swenson et al. 1994). Limited by energy reserve, they have to leave their nests more often for foraging. Studies have documented that parents compensate for energy demands by reducing nest attentiveness (MacDonald et al. 2014). These might be the reasons why breeding success was related to more and longer recesses in Chinese Grouse females.
Females who were tracked by transmitters (weighing about 12 g, or 3-4% of their body weights, Sun et al. 2003) required longer recesses, presumably for more foraging. However, low attentiveness can decrease reproductive success (Mallory 2009; Shoji et al. 2011). Although we found no significant difference on reproductive success between tracked and untracked females, we believe that the additional burden of the transmitters might have adverse effects on the tracked females during incubation.
Our results showed differences in recess duration between years, which might be affected by environment temperatures and different monitoring methods. Method does affect recess duration (one-way ANOVA, F=16.37, p < 0.001, Tdatalog6=21.32, Tdatalog1=19.34, Tcamera=18.21). Data logger could overestimate the recess duration because of delayed temperature recording. But recess duration still has significant difference among years, when we excluded the effect of method. Many studies have shown that females take more and shorter recesses in cold environments (Conway and Martin 2000b; Londono et al. 2008; Reneerkens et al. 2011; MacDonald et al. 2014). The recess length of Chinese Grouse in 2001 (17.37±6.23 min) was shorter than that in 2000 (21.06±7.06 min) (t test, both p < 0.001). We recorded the air temperature in 2000 and 2001. The daily average air temperature during incubation was significantly lower in 2001 (5.4±1.6 ℃) than in 2000 (8.5±2.1 ℃) (t test, p < 0.001). As the daily number of recesses was higher in 2001 (5.37±0.96, n=249) than in 2000 (5.09±0.95, n=540) (t test, p=0.093), we suggest that the Chinese grouse females adjust incubation rhythm to adapt environment constraints. This correlation has also been found in other grouse species, such as the Spruce Grouse (Naylor et al. 1988). However, studies on the Capercaillie showed that cold weather did not affect the number and length of recesses for this largest grouse (Semenov-Tyan-Shanskii 1960).
Fluctuations in temperature are more detrimental to eggs as incubation progresses (Webb 1987). Meanwhile, the rate of heat loss from eggs increases with embryo age (Cooper and Voss 2013). Female Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) responds to increased egg cooling rates by altering incubation rhythms (with more frequent and shorter on- and off-bouts) (Cooper and Voss 2013). The Chinese Grouse females also reduced the recess length as the incubation progressed. However, the daily inattentive period did not differ. For incubating females, body mass has been associated with food abundance (Quillfeldt et al. 2006), and positively related to reproductive success (Gloutney and Clark 1991). In the latter period of incubation, their foraging requirement might be more urgent, as adequate feeding is essential for reproductive success. So, female Chinese Grouse might increase the frequency of recesses and shorten recess duration. Similar results were also found in the Wood Duck (Aix spons) (Hepp et al. 1990).
A bimodal pattern of recess timing may not be driven primarily by predation pressure, but by physiological needs of the incubating female (Winder et al. 2016). Female grouse may have a greater energy demand at dawn after fasting overnight, and take recesses at dusk to obtain energy reserves for overnight hours (Wiebe and Martin 1997). Successful females took more and longer recesses, which is at odds with the view that fewer trips to and from the nest may attract fewer predators to the eggs (Ghalambor and Martin 2002). In addition, radio-tracked females increased food intake to cover the additional burden of carrying the transmitter. We suggest that the energy needs of the incubating female are more important than egg chilling and predation risk. We conclude that the egg laying and incubation rhythm of the Chinese Grouse is an adaption mainly to deal with energy stress, with predation risk being of less importance.
Conclusion
We conclude that the egg laying and incubation rhythms of Chinese Grouse are driven by energy constraints. Compared with other grouse, female Chinese Grouse take longer egg laying intervals, leave nests more times per day with lower incubation attentiveness and longer incubation period to balance the thermal needs of the developing embryos and their self-maintenance needs.
Acknowledgements
We thank people in the Lianhuashan Natural Reserve for their great helps. Prof. Kathy Martin gave us great comments on our manuscript. We appreciate all these help for the improvement of this paper.
Authors' contributions
MS and YHS conceived and designed the idea. YF, JMZ, YXJ and MS performed the field work. MS, JS and SK analyzed the data. MS and YHS wrote the paper. All authors contributed critically to the manuscript and gave final approval for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All capture, radio-tag and tracking procedures on Chinese Grouse used in the present study had been given prior approval and were supervised by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Institute of Zoology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Project No. 2008/73).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Alatalo RV, Eriksson D, Gustafsson L, Larsson K. Exploitation competition influences the use of foraging sites by tits: experimental evidence. Ecology. 1987;68:284-90.
Amarasekare P, Hoopes MF, Mouquet N, Holyoak M. Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. Am Nat. 2004;164:310-26.
Barbaro L, van Halder I. Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecography. 2009;32:321-33.
Beven G. Changes in breeding bird populations of an oak-wood on Bookham Common, Surrey, over twenty-seven years. Lond Nat. 1976;55:23-42.
Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe S. Bird census techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2000.
Bolnick DI, Amarasekare P, Araújo MS, Bürger R, Levine JM, Novak M, Rudolf VHW, Schreiber SJ, Urban MC, Vasseur DA. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26:183-92.
Brook BW, Buettel JC. Emigration is costly, but immigration has benefits in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol. 2016;30:1478-9.
Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology. 1977;58:445-9.
Brown WL, Wilson EO. Character displacement. Syst Zool. 1956;5:49-64.
Brown BL, Sokol ER, Skelton J, Tornwall B. Making sense of metacommunities: dispelling the mythology of a metacommunity typology. Oecologia. 2017;183:643-52.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer; 2003.
Chave J. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:241-53.
Chen C, Holyoak M, Si X, Wang Y, Ding P. Do seasonal species assemblages differ in their biogeography? Evidence from the spatial structure of bird communities on land-bridge islands. J Biogeogr. 2018a;45:473-83.
Chen C, Holyoak M, Si X, Wang Y, Ding P. Species traits, habitat characteristics and spatial dynamics of birds on land-bridge islands. China: Thousand Island Lake. Pangaea; 2018b. .
Cook RR, Hanski I. On expected lifetimes of small-bodied and large-bodied species of birds on islands. Am Nat. 1995;145:307-15.
Core Team R. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
Cottenie K. Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:1175-82.
Dolédec S, Chessel D, ter Braak CJF, Champely S. Matching species traits to environmental variables: a new three-table ordination method. Environ Ecol Stat. 1996;3:143-66.
Dray S, Dufour AB. The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw. 2007;22:1-20.
Dray S, Choler P, Dolédec S, Peres-Neto PR, Thuiller W, Pavoine S, ter Braak CJF. Combining the fourth-corner and the RLQ methods for assessing trait responses to environmental variation. Ecology. 2014;95:14-21.
Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB. Empirical tests of metacommunity theory using an isolation gradient. Ecol Monogr. 2009;79:485-501.
Ellis AM, Lounibos LP, Holyoak M. Evaluating the long-term metacommunity dynamics of tree hole mosquitoes. Ecology. 2006;87:2582-90.
Farneda FZ, Rocha R, López-Baucells A, Groenenberg M, Silva I, Palmeirim JM, Bobrowiec PED, Meyer CFJ. Trait-related responses to habitat fragmentation in Amazonian bats. J Appl Ecol. 2015;52:1381-91.
Fattorini S. The influence of geographical and ecological factors on island beta diversity patterns. J Biogeogr. 2010;37:1061-70.
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. Nestedness in fragmented landscapes: a case study on birds, arboreal marsupials and lizards. J Biogeogr. 2005;32:1737-50.
Fukami T. Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2015;46:1-23.
Hanski I. Population dynamics of shrews on small islands accord with the equilibrium model. Biol J Linn Soc. 1986;28:23-36.
Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv. 2004;13:207-51.
Herrera CM. Ecological correlates of residence and non-residence in a mediterranean passerine bird community. J Anim Ecol. 1978;47:871-90.
Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD. Metacommunities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.
Hubbell SP. The unified neutral theory of species abundance and diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001.
Hutto RL. Habitat selection by nonbreeding, migratory land birds. In: Cody ML, editor. Habitat selection in birds. London: Academic Press; 1985. p. 455-73.
Klingbeil BT, Willig MR. Community assembly in temperate forest birds: habitat filtering, interspecific interactions and priority effects. Evol Ecol. 2016;30:703-22.
Leck CF. Seasonal changes in feeding pressures of fruit- and nectar-eating birds in Panama. Condor. 1972;74:54-60.
Legendre P, Galzin R, Harmelin-Vivien ML. Relating behavior to habitat: solutions to the fourth-corner problem. Ecology. 1997;78:547-62.
Leibold MA, Chase JM. Metacommunity ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2017.
Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:601-13.
Leisler B. Habitat selection and coexistence of migrants and Afrotropical residents. Ibis. 1992;134:77-82.
Levey DJ, Stiles FG. Evolutionary precursors of long-distance migration: resource availability and movement patterns in neotropical landbirds. Am Nat. 1992;140:447-76.
Logue JB, Mouquet N, Peter H, Hillebrand H. The metacommunity working group. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26:482-91.
MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Seamans ME, Gutiérrez RJ. Modeling species occurrence dynamics with multiple states and imperfect detection. Ecology. 2009;90:823-35.
MacKinnon JR, MacKinnon J, Phillipps K, He FQ. A field guide to the birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
Marra PP, Hobson KA, Holmes RT. Linking winter and summer events in a migratory bird by using stable-carbon isotopes. Science. 1998;282:1884-6.
Meynard CN, Quinn JF. Bird metacommunities in temperate South American forest: vegetation structure, area, and climate effects. Ecology. 2008;89:981-90.
Murcia C. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 1995;10:58-62.
Murgui E. Effects of seasonality on the species-area relationship: a case study with birds in urban parks. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2007;16:319-29.
Murgui E. Seasonality and nestedness of bird communities in urban parks in Valencia, Spain. Ecography. 2010;33:979-84.
Nice MM. The role of territory in bird life. Am Midl Nat. 1941;26:441-87.
Norris DR, Marra PP. Seasonal interactions, habitat quality, and population dynamics in migratory birds. Condor. 2007;109:535-47.
Nour N, van Damme R, Matthysen E, Dhondt AA. Forest birds in forest fragments: are fragmentation effects independent of season? Bird Study. 2010;46:279-88.
Özkan K, Svenning JC, Jeppesen E. Environmental species sorting dominates forest-bird community assembly across scales. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82:266-74.
Pavoine S, Baguette M, Stevens VM, Leibold MA, Turlure C, Bonsall MB. Life history traits, but not phylogeny, drive compositional patterns in a butterfly metacommunity. Ecology. 2014;95:3304-13.
Peltonen A, Hanski I. Patterns of island occupancy explained by colonization and extinction rates in shrews. Ecology. 1991;72:1698-708.
Pimm SL. The balance of nature? Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1991.
Rayner L, Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, Gibbons P, Manning AD. Are protected areas maintaining bird diversity? Ecography. 2014;37:43-53.
Russell GJ, Diamond JM, Reed TM, Pimm SL. Breeding birds on small islands: island biogeography or optimal foraging? J Anim Ecol. 2006;75:324-39.
Schoener TW. Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology. 1968;49:123-41.
Schoereder JH, Galbiati C, Ribas CR, Sobrinho TG, Sperber CF, DeSouza O, Lopes-Andrade C. Should we use proportional sampling for species-area studies? J Biogeogr. 2004;31:1219-26.
Si X, Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Ding P. Turnover of breeding bird communities on islands in an inundated lake. J Biogeogr. 2014;41:2283-92.
Si X, Cadotte MW, Zeng D, Baselga A, Zhao Y, Li J, Wu Y, Wang S, Ding P. Functional and phylogenetic structure of island bird communities. J Anim Ecol. 2017;86:532-42.
Song X, Holt RD, Si X, Christman MC, Ding P. When the species-time-area relationship meets island biogeography: diversity patterns of avian communities over time and space in a subtropical archipelago. J Biogeogr. 2018;45:664-75.
Stracey CM, Pimm SL. Testing island biogeography theory with visitation rates of birds to British islands. J Biogeogr. 2009;36:1532-9.
Tellería JL, Santos T. Seasonal and interannual occupation of a forest archipelago by insectivorous passerines. Oikos. 1997;78:239-48.
Tramer EJ. Proportions of wintering North American birds in disturbed and undisturbed dry tropical habitats. Condor. 1974;76:460-4.
Wang Y, Bao Y, Yu M, Xu G, Ding P. Nestedness for different reasons: the distributions of birds, lizards and small mammals on islands of an inundated lake. Divers Distrib. 2010;16:862-73.
Wang Y, Chen S, Ding P. Testing multiple assembly rule models in avian communities on islands of an inundated lake, Zhejiang Province, China. J Biogeogr. 2011;38:1330-44.
Wang Y, Thornton DH, Ge D, Wang S, Ding P. Ecological correlates of vulnerability to fragmentation in forest birds on inundated subtropical land-bridge islands. Biol Conserv. 2015;191:251-7.
White EP, Hurlbert AH. The combined influence of the local environment and regional enrichment on bird species richness. Am Nat. 2010;175:E35-43.
Wiens JA. The ecology of bird communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
Zhuge Y. Fauna of Zhejiang: aves. Zhejiang: Zhejiang Science and Technology Publishing House; 1990.
Zuckerberg B, Fink D, La Sorte FA, Hochachka WM, Kelling S. Novel seasonal land cover associations for eastern North American forest birds identified through dynamic species distribution modelling. Divers Distrib. 2016;22:717-30.
Lakshmi Seshadri, Anagaw Atickem, Dietmar Zinner, et al. Whole Genome Analysis Reveals Evolutionary History and Introgression Events in Bale Monkeys. Genes, 2024, 15(11): 1359.
DOI:10.3390/genes15111359
2.
Kelly J. Iknayan, Sacha K. Heath, Scott B. Terrill, et al. Patterns in bird and pollinator occupancy and richness in a mosaic of urban office parks across scales and seasons. Ecology and Evolution, 2024, 14(3)
DOI:10.1002/ece3.10958
3.
Zhenhua Wei, Lizhi Zhou. The impact of earlier flood recession on metacommunity diversity of wintering waterbirds at shallow lakes in the middle and lower Yangtze River floodplain. Avian Research, 2023, 14: 100102.
DOI:10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100102
Table
1.
The number of daily recesses and nest constancy of Chinese Grouse females during the incubation period at Lianhuashan Nature Reserve, Gansu, China
Year-female number
Nest age
Number of daily recessesa
Recess duration (min)b
Nest constancy (%)c
Hatched/Failed
Radio-tracked
99-01
2-26
5.36±1.16 (23)
28.93±7.59 (129)
89.16±1.96
H
Y
99-02
5-16
4.83±0.79 (12)
22.84±5.49 (57)
92.31±1.17
F
Y
99-03
18-24
5.57±0.82 (7)
22.76±10.23 (39)
91.19±1.62
H
Y
00-01
22-30
3.56±0.53 (9)
21.48±7.06 (31)
94.72±1.18
H
N
00-02
6-29
5.25±0.61 (24)
18.87±6.66 (126)
93.12±1.16
H
Y
00-03
7-25
4.84±0.96 (19)
20.66±6.67 (92)
93.05±1.22
F
N
00-04
5-28
4.67±0.87 (24)
23.52±7.93 (113)
92.40±1.29
H
Y
00-05
8-21
4.69±0.63 (13)
22.78±7.42 (64)
92.66±1.07
H
Y
00-06
13-25
6.15±0.81 (13)
21.19±6.31 (78)
91.30±1.69
F
Y
00-07
12-19
4.50±0.53 (8)
18.83±4.34 (36)
94.11±0.75
F
N
01-01
8-18
4.36±0.67 (11)
19.38±6.69 (48)
94.13±1.09
F
Y
01-02
15-29
6.07±0.70 (15)
15.9±5.06 (92)
93.39±1.08
H
Y
01-03
10-26
5.19±0.75 (16)
16.36±6.48 (84)
94.11±1.20
F
N
01-04
13-20
4.29±0.49 (7)
22.32±5.06 (25)
93.54±0.57
F
Y
10-01
1-13
4.54±0.66 (13)
21.97±5.48 (59)
93.08±1.26
F
N
10-02
2-23
4.64±0.58 (22)
14.38±4.09 (101)
95.42±0.73
F
Y
10-03
13-20
4.75±0.71 (8)
23.56±8.94 (36)
92.27±1.60
F
Y
10-04
19-27
4.89±0.78 (9)
22.37±7.4 (43)
92.42±0.91
H
Y
10-05
17-26
5.30±0.82 (10)
20.55±5.71 (52)
92.58±1.17
H
N
13-01
2-16
4.41±0.79 (15)
21.09±7.38 (52)
93.29±1.91
H
Y
13-02
7-18
4.45±0.52 (11)
23.6±9.36 (10)
93.08±2.65
F
Y
13-03
15-24
5.18±0.60 (11)
19.86±8.8 (43)
93.02±1.68
H
N
14-01
10-20
4.15±0.69 (11)
18.28±5.78 (39)
94.56±1.48
H
Y
14-02
3-12
5.90±0.88 (10)
18.71±9.61 (45)
92.32±1.76
H
Y
15-01
2-8
4.29±0.49 (7)
17.64±4.93 (28)
94.85±0.86
H
Y
16-01
19-25
6.00±0.76 (7)
18.21±7.56 (29)
92.96±1.29
H
Y
16-02
2-25
6.13±0.85 (24)
16.24±7.51 (109)
93.53±1.81
H
N
16-03
14-25
4.33±0.49 (12)
16.28±4.22 (36)
95.21±0.71
H
Y
a Mean±SD (n), n was days excluding those disturbed by research action and irregular recesses b Mean±SD (n), n was recesses excluding those missing record of female going out or coming back c Mean±SD, n (constancy)=n (number of daily recesses), nest constancy=(1440 min-t (female staying out of nest)/1440 min)×100%
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds