Richard Evan Feldman, Antonio Celis-Murillo, Jill L. Deppe, Michael P. Ward. 2021: Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Avian Research, 12(1): 66. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00299-w
Citation:
Richard Evan Feldman, Antonio Celis-Murillo, Jill L. Deppe, Michael P. Ward. 2021: Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Avian Research, 12(1): 66. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00299-w
Richard Evan Feldman, Antonio Celis-Murillo, Jill L. Deppe, Michael P. Ward. 2021: Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Avian Research, 12(1): 66. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00299-w
Citation:
Richard Evan Feldman, Antonio Celis-Murillo, Jill L. Deppe, Michael P. Ward. 2021: Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Avian Research, 12(1): 66. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00299-w
For migrating birds, stopover requires spending time and energy that otherwise could be allocated to flying. Thus, birds optimally refuel their subsequent migratory flight by reducing stopover duration or foraging activity in food-rich environments. In coastal habitats, birds may forego refueling and take short stopovers irrespective of local food availability. Given the paucity of studies exploring how migrants adjust stopover behavior in response to temporal variation in food availability, especially in the Neotropics, we fixed radio tags to 51 Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceous) over two years at two sites on the coast of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.
Methods
We applied VHF radio tags during the fall of 2016 and 2017, and tracked birds using automatic and manual receiving units. We estimated stopover duration and activity levels (one site only) for between six and fifteen birds, depending on site and year. We measured fruit availability weekly along the net lanes where we captured birds. We used a generalized linear model to estimate the relationships between stopover duration/activity level and fruit density, bird body mass and year. We interpreted relationships for the model with the lowest AICc value.
Results
We found that approximately half of the birds departed on the same day they were captured. For the birds that stayed longer, we could not discern whether they did so because they were light, or fruit density was high. On the other hand, lighter birds were more active than heavier birds but only in one of the two years.
Conclusions
Given our results, it is unlikely that Red-eyed Vireos refuel along the Yucatan coast. However, they still likely need to recuperate from crossing the Gulf of Mexico, which may necessitate foraging more often if in poor body condition. If the birds then move inland then stopover should be thought of as a large-scale phenomenon, where habitats with different functions may be spread out over a broad landscape.
In altricial birds, parenting behaviors are critical for the survival of dependent offspring (Silver et al. 1985; Tallamy and Wood 1986) while they are costly for parents due to their time- and energy-consuming (Skutch 1949). It has long been suggested by the life-history theory that parents should optimize their parenting patterns under a specific environmental condition in a way that would maximize their reproductive fitness (Lack 1954). Empirical tests of the life-history theory have revealed an astonishing diversity in altricial birds' parenting care patterns (Winkler and Wallin 1987; Martin 1995; Sæther and Bakke 2000; Eikenaar et al. 2003; Martin et al. 2011; Du et al. 2014). These patterns are generally considered as an adaptive response to various environmental conditions, such as food availability and nest predation risk (Martin 1995; Caro et al. 2016). However, few studies have attached importance to the differentiation in life-history style in driving avian parenting behaviors to diversify.
One fundamental characteristic of life-history style is the time that an individual can breed a year. Most passerine species, only when the length of breeding season supports multiple broods could an individual select to breed one or more times (Verhulst and Nilsson 2008; Camfield et al. 2010; Du et al. 2014; Li et al. 2020a). Single- and multi-brooded breeders exhibit different tradeoffs in their parenting patterns. Multi-brooded individuals often adopt different strategies across broods. It will be beneficial for breeders to adopt a brood reduction strategy when the breeding conditions are poor, i.e. biasing investment towards stronger offspring, to ensure the lowest nest survival threshold (Mock and Forbes 1994; Forbes et al. 2001). When breeding conditions are better, it will be beneficial for breeders to adopt a brood survival strategy, i.e. biasing investment towards weaker offspring, so that they can raise many offspring as possible (Slagsvold et al. 1984, 1997; Forbes 2007). In contrast, single-brood species are more likely to adopt the brood survival strategy regardless of the breeding conditions, as they have only one chance to realize their fitness (Du et al. 2012; Li et al. 2020a). A comparison between sympatric single- and multi-brooded species' parenting strategies would help understand the role of life-history style in the diversity of avian parenting behaviors.
Altricial birds have two important breeding phases, the egg and the nestling, to optimize their parenting strategies. In the egg phase, parents trade off the eggs' number and size mainly based on the expected amount of available food (egg size strategy; Slagsvold et al. 1984; Christians 2002); whereas, they select their brood provisioning strategy based on the actual amount of food in the nestling phase (Decker et al. 2012). By modulating an egg's size according to its laying sequence, female birds can affect the size hierarchy among newly-hatched offspring, which in turn affects the intensity of subsequent sibling rivalry (Shizuka and Lyon 2013; Mainwaring et al. 2014). When the egg size decreases with the laying sequence, as in the Giant Babax (Babax wadelli), the last hatchling is smaller than its older siblings and hence at a disadvantage in the competition over parental investment within the brood (Du et al. 2012). In contrast, when the egg size increases with the laying sequence, as in the Azure-winged Magpie (Cyanopica cyanus), later hatchlings are larger at hatching than their older brood-mates. This can compensate, to some extent, for the disadvantage faced by later offspring in competing with their older siblings (Da et al. 2018). In the tradeoff between nestlings' number and size, parents in many cases adopt different parenting strategies from that in egg-laying, particularly in an environment where the breeding conditions are unpredictable (Decker et al. 2012). For example, parents of the Giant Babax adopt the "brood reduction" strategy in laying eggs and the "brood survival" strategy in provisioning the nestlings (Du et al. 2012); while parents of the Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) adopt the "brood survival" strategy in laying eggs and the "brood reduction" strategy in provisioning the nestlings (Du et al. 2014; Da et al. 2018). The difference in individual tradeoffs between egg-laying and nestling-provisioning has become a common explanation for parenting pattern evolution, whereas the effect of life-history style has been largely neglected.
In this study, we addressed the role of life-history style in the evolution of parenting patterns in the Grey-backed Shrike (Lanius tephronotus), which is a small (approximately 40 g), carnivorous bird with no sexual dimorphism neither in size nor in plumage. It is the only Lanius species that can breed at the high elevation of the Tibetan Plateau (ranging between 2700 and 4500 m) (Lu et al. 2010). Generally, Grey-backed Shrikes produce only one brood a year. In a population distributed in their upper range limit (4000–4500 m), the clutch size (ranging from 3 to 5) decreases significantly with the elevation (Lu et al. 2010). In contrast, in the population distributed in the lower range limit on the Tibetan Plateau (2600–2900 m), females tend to produce a fixed clutch size of five (B. Du, unpublished data). It seems that Grey-backed Shrikes have made adaptive responses to the variation of breeding conditions; hence, it might be an ideal system to compare individual tradeoffs between egg-laying and nestling-provisioning. Several shrub-nesting bird species, such as the White-collared Blackbirds (Turdus albocinctus) (Fan et al. 2017) and the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush (Trochalopteron henrici) (Li et al. 2020b), are sympatric in the Grey-backed Shrike's lower range limit. Both species mix with the Grey-backed Shrike in their nesting and foraging sites, but can breed twice a year. Therefore, it becomes possible to compare the parenting strategy of sympatric species, to identify the relative role of life-history style and breeding conditions in driving parenting behavior evolution.
To address whether Grey-backed Shrikes adopt different strategies between the egg and nestling phases, we first identified their egg-laying pattern and the growth pattern of nestling body mass with different hatching sequences. Then, we also performed a dietary investigation and food types between the Grey-backed Shrike and Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush to examine the life-history style's effect on the differentiation of parenting patterns.
Methods
Study area and population
This study was carried out in the Bayi town, Tibetan Autonomous Region, China (29°40′N, 94°20′E, mean altitude of 2900 m), during 2015–2019. This region has a typical cold (mean annual temperature 7℃) and wet (annual precipitation 500–700 mm) high-altitude climate. The temperature and precipitation change greatly through the year, with the highest temperatures and rainfall occurring between June and August (Fan et al. 2017). Local landscape is characterized by the evergreen Chuan-Dian Alpine Oak (Quercus aquifolioides) forest, mixed with some deciduous trees, such as the Aspen (Populus davidiana) and Tibetan Willow (Salix insignis), and shrubs composed mainly of the Lhasa Berberis (Berberis hemsleyana), roses (Rose spp.), azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), and powder-branched berry (Rubus biflorus). Our study area of 300 ha is located along the Niyang River, where Grey-backed Shrikes choose to build most of their nests in the shrubs.
Grey-backed Shrikes breed once a year in our study area. At the end of June, pairs start occupying territories and build their nests in the shrubs. Nest construction is carried out mainly by the female, while the male defends the territory. The outmost layer of a nest comprises small branches, withered grass, and plastic sheeting pieces, while the inner layer is lined with fine grass stems and animal hair. Females lay their eggs immediately after the nest is constructed. After the first egg is laid, the female would brood the nest, but only at night; after the penultimate egg was laid, all-day incubation is commenced. After that, both sexes contribute to the incubation. Hatching asynchrony occurs in the Grey-backed Shrike, with three or four chicks hatching in the first day and the remaining on the second day. Both sexes contribute to provisioning nestlings during the nestling period and approximately one month after they fledge.
Data collection for reproductive parameters
Data collection for reproductive parameters began with a systematic search for the Grey-backed Shrike nests at the end of June. The nest contents were checked daily to determine the clutch initiation date (the date when the first egg was laid) and the laying sequence of each egg. The laying sequence was marked on its eggshells with a non-toxic marker pen (Deli Company, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China). The fresh mass as an index for its size, was measured with an electronic balance to the nearest 0.1 g. The hatching sequence was marked on the chicks' heads at hatching, and their body mass was measured (to the nearest 0.1 g). When two or more nestlings hatched on the first day, their hatching sequences could be determined according to their skin color. The darker the color, the earlier a nestling hatched. During the nestling period, nest content was checked every two days to measure the nestlings' body mass. When the nestlings reached 30 g or were older than ten days, they were leg-banded with one numbered metal ring and two colored plastic rings. Nesting success was considered achieved when a social pair fledged at least one offspring.
Adults were captured after the nestlings have hatched, using a method that had been successfully adopted to capture other shrub-nesting species, such as the Azure-winged Magpie (Ren et al. 2016) and the White-collared Blackbird (Fan et al. 2017). Capturing the adults and measuring the nestlings were performed under the permission of the Tibetan Forestry Department (2016ZR-NY-05). Each captured individual was sexed by the presence of a brooding patch, leg-banded with one numbered aluminum ring and two colored plastic rings, and weighed. Only one parent was captured in most nests to minimize the disturbance on parenting behaviors. This procedure fulfilled the parents' sex identification requirement.
A dietary investigation was performed during the nestling period to examine the type and size of food that Grey-backed Shrikes delivered to their offspring. First, adults foraging behaviors were monitored to determine their foraging sites. Then, different types of food were sampled at the foraging sites by searching for insects on the ground and in the earth, and by gathering fruits berries as, in some cases, adults were found to feed on such plant food. The different types of food were weighed and classified based on their mean mass (Additional file 1: Table S1). These were considered candidate dietary items that parents might deliver to their offspring.
Data collection for parental provisioning behaviors
After adults were leg-banded, their provisioning behaviors were recorded automatically by digital camcorders (ZX1, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) for 3 h (9:00–12:00 a.m., China Standard Time) every two days. Each camcorder was mounted on a tripod that was fixed diagonally 0.8–1 m above a nest. The recording process caused the Grey-backed Shrike no adverse effects as there were no nest abandonment cases during the recording periods. A total of 256 h of adult provisioning behavior recordings were obtained (13.5 ± 0.7 h per nest, n = 19 nests).
Data on parental provisioning behaviors were extracted from videos by playing them back on a computer. This dataset included: (1) identity of the nest-visitor and whether it delivered food to the brood; (2) the type, number, size of food a provisioner delivered to the nestlings; (3) the predators' species that were monitored preying on eggs or nestlings. Based on these data, an individual's provisioning rate was calculated as the number of feeding bouts per hour; the food types and sizes identified in the video were assigned to the candidate food list (Additional file1: Table S1), so that the amount of food a parent delivered to the brood per feeding bout could be calculated.
Statistical analysis
A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fitted to test factors that might influence the fresh egg mass set as a dependent variable, with identical link function (Table 1). Fixed factors included the clutch initiation date and the egg laying sequence. The clutch size was not included in the model because it seemed stable among the nests. Random effects included the year and nest identity. A GLMM was also fitted to test factors that might influence the nestlings' body mass set as a dependent variable, with identical link function (Table 2). Fixed factors included the clutch initiation date, nestling age, the hatching sequence. Random effects included the year, nest identity, and nestling identity. Factors that might influence the provisioning rate of males and females set as a dependent variable, with identical link function (Table 3), were tested by fitting two more GLMMs. Fixed effects included brood size and nestling age, and random effects included the year and nest identity. Similarly, factors that might influence the food amount delivered by males or females per feeding bout (set as dependent variable), with identical link function (Table 4) were tested by fitting GLMMs. Fixed effects included brood size, nestling age, the breeder's provisioning rate, and random effects included the year and nest identity. During the process of fitting GLMMs, we did not introduce parental body conditions into the model because parents were captured in different nestling ages, and in most nests, only one parent was captured. As a substitute, we performed variance component analysis (VCA) to examine the relative contribution of between-nest difference (i.e. the random effect of nest identity) to the variance in each dependent variable. Multiple linear regression was used to test the multicollinearity of fixed effect variables before fitting the GLMMs. Variables were considered to have serious multicollinearity when their variance inflation factor (VIF) was larger than three.
Table
1.
Factors that might influence the egg's fresh mass in the Grey-backed Shrike
Generalized linear mixed model parameters
Fixed effects
β ± SE
n
t
P
Intercept
4.274 ± 0.094
151
45.618
< 0.001
Clutch initiation date
– 0.002 ± 0.003
151
– 0.555
0.580
Laying sequence
0.058 ± 0.016
151
3.697
< 0.001
Random effects
β ± SD
n
Results of VCA (%)
Nest identity
0.097 ± 0.311
151
66.90
Years
0.001 ± 0.001
151
0.69
Residual
0.047 ± 0.217
151
32.41
SE of fixed effects is the standard error of the mean; SD of random effects is the square root of the variance. The explanations apply also to Table 2, 3 and 4
A logistic model was fitted to monitor the nestlings' growth pattern based on their body mass, using non-linear regression (Huin and Prince 2000): W = K / (1 + exp(a – b × A)). In this equation, W is the nestling's body mass, K is the asymptotic body mass that a fledgling could reach, a is the nestling's exponential growth initiation date, b is the instantaneous growth rate, and A is the nestling age. The fledgling body mass of nestlings was compared by one-way ANOVA based on their hatching sequence.
The different food types frequencies delivered by parents to their offspring were tested to examine whether they were distributed evenly, using the one sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
All analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 21.0; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) and R (version 3.3.4). Descriptive results are presented as mean ± standard error (SE). The null hypothesis was rejected when P < 0.05, and reported probabilities are two-tailed.
Results
Over four years (2015–2018), 59 Grey-backed Shrikes nests were observed to complete their clutches in our study area. Females tended to produce a fixed clutch size of five (97% of the nests, 57/59). The mean fresh egg mass was 4.5 ± 0.4 g (n = 151, range 3.6–5.7 g). Thirty-one nests fledged at least one offspring, with a mean brood size of 4.0 ± 0.2 (n = 31 broods). The Domestic Cat (Felis catus) that preyed on the eggs and nestlings was found to be the main predator of the Grey-backed Shrike.
Variation of egg size with their laying sequence
The fresh egg mass did not vary with the clutch initiation date, but it changed significantly with the laying sequence (Table 1). The later an egg was laid, the larger it was (F4, 146 = 2.52, P = 0.04; Fig. 1). The variance of eggs' fresh mass was greater between nests than between years (Table 1).
Figure
1.
Variation of an egg's fresh mass with its laying sequence in the Grey-backed Shrike
A nestling's body mass increased significantly with age but did not differ between clutch initiation date or its hatching sequence (Table 2). The variance of nestling's body mass was greater between nests or years than between nestlings (Table 2).
The last nestlings in a brood were the biggest offspring, whereas the penultimate nestlings were the smallest ones (Fig. 2). As the last nestlings were usually one day younger than their brood-mates, the body mass growth patterns differed significantly among brood-mates (Fig. 2).
Figure
2.
Variation of a nestling's body mass with its age in the Grey-backed Shrike (first nestling, black crosses and line; second nestling, red triangles and line; third nestling, blue circles and line; fourth nestling, green diamonds and line; last nestling, purple stars and line)
The provisioning rate increased significantly with the nestling age in both males and females, but increased with brood size only in females (Table 3). Males' provisioning rate variance was greater between nests than between years; whole for females, it was greater between years than between nests (Table 3).
Food amount delivered by males per feeding bout increased with the brood size but decreased with the provisioning rate in both males and females. It changed with the nestling age only in females (Table 4). The variance of males' food amount per feeding bout is greater between nests than between years, while it was the same between nests and between years in females (Table 4).
Males' provisioning rate (8.92 ± 0.58 bouts/h, n = 16 days) was significantly lower than that of females (11.17 ± 1.09 bouts/h, n = 16 days; t = – 2.24, df = 15, P = 0.04; Fig. 3a). However, the amount of food males delivered per feeding bout (0.17 ± 0.003 bouts/h, n = 16 days) was significantly higher than that of females (0.15 ± 0.003 bouts/h, n = 16 days; t = 5.84, df = 15, P = 0.001; Fig. 3b). As a result, males' contribution to provisioning of offspring (49.06 ± 2.86%, n = 16 days) was the same as that of females (50.94 ± 2.86%, n = 16 days; t = 0.33, df = 15, P = 0.75).
Figure
3.
Variation of breeders' provisioning rate a and food amount delivered per feeding bout b, both of which are standardized in fitting generalized linear mixed models, with the nestling age in the Grey-backed Shrike. Female: circles and dotted line; male: diamonds and solid line
The dietary investigation identified eleven types of food that parents had delivered to their offspring (Fig. 4). The frequencies of the different food types are unevenly distributed (Z = 1.48, n = 11, P = 0.03). Lepidoptera larva and Hymenoptera adult were the two main components, contributing 29.07% and 24.27% to the diet, respectively; plant food, mainly powder-branched berry, was the least prevalent component, contributing only 0.15% to the diet (Fig. 4).
Figure
4.
Frequency of different food types that parents deliver to their offspring in the Grey-backed Shrikes (black column), as well as the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrushes in their first (blank columns) and second breeding attempt (red columns). Data supporting this result are provided in Additional file 1: Table S2
The dietary items of the Grey-backed Shrike exhibit two major differences compared with the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush. First, nearly one quarter of the Grey-backed Shrike's diet is adult Hymenoptera that was not listed as food for Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush. Yet, more than a quarter of the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush's diet is adult Diptera, followed by powder-branched berry (Fig. 4). Second, Grey-backed Shrikes rely mainly on animal food, whereas Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrushes mix animal and plant food to raise their offspring (Fig. 4). Moreover, meat has contributed 5.12% to the Grey-backed Shrike diet (Fig. 4). We recorded one case in which parents tore down a chick that had died in the nest and fed it to the remaining nestlings.
Discussion
Grey-backed Shrike parents adopt a brood survival strategy in both the egg and nestling phases. Such a strategy is not only an adaptive response to the local environmental conditions, but also a consequence of the Grey-backed Shrike life-history style of one brood a year and a wide range of dietary items.
Brood survival strategy of the Grey-backed Shrike in egg-laying
In our study area, female Gray-backed Shrikes' egg-laying strategy differs from the similar egg size strategy found in altricial birds, often manifested by a tradeoff between the number and size of eggs (Slagsvold et al. 1984; Martin 1987). Under preferable environmental conditions, such as lower nest predation risk and plentiful food supply, parents tend to lay larger clutches of smaller eggs; whereas under poor environmental conditions, such as higher nest predation risk and food scarcity, they are more likely to lay smaller clutches of larger eggs (Forbes 1993; Forbes et al. 2001; Du et al. 2012). Grey-backed Shrikes in our study area (i.e. the lower limit of their distribution on the Tibetan Plateau) produce clutches with a fixed size, unlike the population breeding in the upper limit of their Tibetan Plateau distribution. The population produces unstable clutches of decreasing size with altitude (Lu et al. 2010). Under such conditions, females only need to modulate the egg size based on the laying sequence. It would be a simpler strategy than trading off between the number and size of eggs in coping with the local environmental conditions. As the egg size increases with the laying sequence (Table 1), female Grey-backed Shrikes seem to adopt the brood survival strategy by modulating the egg size. This modulation facilitates parents to compensate for the disadvantage faced by the later offspring. After all, the greater the investment parents put into their later eggs, the more likely those offspring are to survive (Du et al. 2014; Da et al. 2018).
Brood survival strategy of the Grey-backed Shrike in brood provisioning
During the nestling period, the last offspring had higher growth rate than their brood-mates, implying that Grey-backed Shrike parents also adopt the brood survival strategy in brood provisioning. In many altricial birds, such as the Horned Larks (Du et al. 2014) and Black-collared Blackbirds (Fan et al. 2017), parents adopt the brood reduction strategy in provisioning their nestlings while they adopt the brood survival strategy when laying their eggs. This difference in parenting strategies between the egg and nestling phases may have resulted from a tradeoff between multiple yearly breeding cycles (Fan et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020a) or between the current and future reproduction (Trivers 1972; Palmer et al. 2004). In both tradeoffs, partial nestlings elimination can at least ensure the nest success; moreover, sacrificing these nestlings might increase the parents' future reproductive prospects. By contrast, Grey-backed Shrikes in our study area raise only one brood a year. Hence, any starving nestling will reduce parental fitness, whereas sacrificing these nestlings seems unlikely to increase their future reproductive prospects because they produce fixed-sized clutches. Therefore, it is most beneficial for Grey-backed Shrikes to raise the entire brood in the current reproduction. In altricial birds, once hatching asynchrony occurs and size hierarchy is established within the brood, later offspring will be disadvantaged when competing for food with their older brood-mates (Du et al. 2012; Fan et al. 2017). However, we found the last Grey-backed Shrikes offspring to have the highest growth rate within the brood (Fig. 2). Although we obtained no direct behavioral evidence for it, we believe it to be a consequence of parental brood survival strategy. If the last nestlings had not obtained a larger food supply than the other nestlings, they could not keep up with the older nestlings' growth.
The wide range of Grey-backed Shrike dietary items ensures that parents could support their entire brood. The dietary investigation revealed that parents delivered eleven types of food to their nestlings (Fig. 4), which cover the most common insects found in our study area (Li et al. 2020a) and some plant food types that are also used by other sympatric birds (Fan et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020a). The Grey-backed Shrike's wide range of dietary items underlies their high provisioning rate and amount of food delivered per feeding bout. As a result, Grey-backed Shrikes can adopt the brood survival strategy in provisioning their offspring.
Life-history style underlying the parenting strategy of altricial birds
Differences in life-history style between sympatric birds, such as the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush and Grey-backed Shrike in our study area, could explain the differences in their parenting strategies. The Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrushes have a longer breeding season from early April to later September (Li et al. 2020b). They can, therefore, breed twice a year and adopt different parenting strategies in the two breeding attempts. For example, they deliver food evenly to the nestlings early in the breeding season (brood survival strategy), while bias food towards larger offspring later in the breeding season (brood reduction strategy; Li et al. 2020b). In contrast, Grey-backed Shrikes have a shorter breeding season from the end of June to early September. Hence, they can breed only once a year, so that a brood survival strategy could maximize their reproductive success. Under these conditions, consistent parenting strategies should be maintained between the egg and nestling phases.
Other behavioral responses to the local environmental conditions driven by the one brood a year life-history style also underlie the Grey-backed Shrike brood survival strategy. First, Grey-backed Shrike parents initiate their reproduction in late June, when most berries are ripe (Fan et al. 2017). A large proportion of the sympatric shrub-nesting birds' diet, including the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrush and White-collared Blackbird, is composed plant feed (Fan et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020b), indicating that the Grey-backed Shrike dietary composition differ from that of multi-brooded species in the area (Fig. 4). The Grey-backed Shrikes can broaden the range of items in their diet and thus reduce the competition with sympatric species. Moreover, the Brown-cheeked Laughing Thrushes and White-collared Blackbirds exhibit sexual division in provisioning the brood (Fan et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020b). The females often contribute less to provisioning the first brood, whereas the males often contribute less to provisioning the second brood, because they made a greater contribution to provisioning the first one. In contrast, Grey-backed Shrikes do not exhibit such sexual differences because both parents contribute equally to the total food supplied. Sexual division in brood provisioning would make it impossible for the Grey-backed Shrike parents to raise the entire brood by adopting a brood survival strategy.
Conclusions
By investigating the egg-laying and nestling growth pattern, we determined that the Grey-backed Shrike parents adopt the brood survival strategy during their parenting process. The one brood a year life-history style in this species, the delayed initiation of reproduction, and the absence of sexual division in brood provisioning might underlie the brood survival strategy adopted by the Grey-backed Shrike parents.
We are grateful to Lili Xian, Juanjuan Luo, Guoliang Chen and Xinwei Da for their help in the field work.
Authors’ contributions
BD and LF designed the study. LG, ZZ, XZ, HZ, WZ and JL collected the life-history data in fieldwork. BD and LG analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The data used in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The ethical permits for the nest translocation experiment were issued by the Tibetan Forestry Department (2016ZR-NY-05). The procedures of animal measurement are under the Wildlife Conservation Law of P. R. China (20170101).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
All authors declare no conflicts of interest to any other organization bodies.
Aborn DA, Moore FR. Activity budgets of summer tanagers during spring migratory stopover. Wilson J Ornithol. 2004;116: 64–8.
Alan RR, McWilliams SR, McGraw KJ. The importance of antioxidants for avian fruit selection during autumn migration. Wilson J Ornithol. 2013;125: 513–25.
Alerstam T. Optimal Bird Migration Revisited. J Ornithol. 2011;152: 5–23.
Alerstam T, Hedenström A. The development of bird migration theory. J Avian Biol. 1998;29: 343–69.
Alerstam T, Lindström Å. Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time, energy and safety. In: Gwinner E, editor. Bird migration. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1990. p. 331–51.
Bairlein F. Fruit-eating in birds and its nutritional consequences. Comp Biochem Phys A. 1996;113: 215–24.
Bairlein F. The effect of diet composition on migratory fuelling in Garden Warblers Sylvia borin. J Avian Biol. 1998;29: 546–51.
Bairlein F. How to get fat: nutritional mechanisms of seasonal fat accumulation in migratory songbirds. Naturwissenschaften. 2002;89: 1–10.
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67: 1–48.
Bayly NJ, Atkinson PW, Rumsey SJR. Fueling for the Sahara crossing: variation in site use and the onset and rate of spring mass gain by 38 Palearctic migrants in the western Sahel. J Ornithol. 2012;153: 931–5.
Bayly NJ, Rosenberg KV, Easton WE, Gómez C, Carlisle J, Ewert DN, et al. Major stopover regions and migratory bottlenecks for Nearctic-Neotropical landbirds within the Neotropics: a review. Bird Conserv Int. 2018;28: 1–26.
Blake JG, Loiselle BA. Variation in resource abundance affects capture rates of birds in three lowland habitats in Costa Rica. Auk. 1991;108: 114–30.
Blake JG, Loiselle BA, Moermond TC, Levey DJ, Denslow JS. Quantifying abundance of fruits for birds in tropical habitats. Stud Avian Biol. 1990;13: 73–9.
Bolser JA, Alan RR, Smith AD, Li L, Seeram NP, McWilliams SR. Birds select fruits with more anthocyanins and phenolic compounds during autumn migration. Wilson J Ornithol. 2013;125: 97–108.
Bonter DN, Zuckerberg B, Sedgwick CW, Hochachka WM. Daily foraging patterns in free-living birds: exploring the predation-starvation trade-off. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;280: 20123087.
Both C, van Asch M, Bijlsma RG, van den Burg AB, Visser ME. Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations? J Anim Ecol. 2009;78: 73–83.
Buler JJ, Moore FR. Migrant-habitat relationships during stopover along an ecological barrier: extrinsic constraints and conservation implications. J Ornithol. 2011;152: 101–12.
Buler JJ, Moore FR, Woltmann S. A multi-scale examination of stopover habitat use by birds. Ecology. 2007;88: 1789–802.
Cimprich DA, Moore FR. Fat affects predator-avoidance behavior in Gray Catbirds (dumetella carolinensis) during migratory stopover. Auk. 2006;123: 1069–76.
Cohen EB, Moore FR, Fischer R. Experimental evidence for the interplay of exogenous and endogenous factors on the movement ecology of a migrating songbird. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e41818.
Cohen EB, Moore FR, Fischer RA. Fuel stores, time of spring, and movement behavior influence stopover duration of Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus. J Ornithol. 2014;155: 785–92.
Cohen EB, Barrow WC, Buler JJ, Deppe JL, Farnsworth A, Marra PP, et al. How do en route events around the Gulf of Mexico influence migratory landbird populations? Condor. 2017;119: 327–43.
Cohen EB, Horton KG, Marra PP, Clipp HL, Farnsworth A, Smolinsky JA, et al. A place to land: spatiotemporal drivers of stopover habitat use by migrating birds. Ecol Lett. 2021;24: 38–49.
Dänhardt J, Lindström Å. Optimal departure decisions of songbirds from an experimental stopover site and the significance of weather. Anim Behav. 2001;62: 235–43.
Deppe JL, Rotenberry JT. Temporal patterns in fall migrant communities in Yucatan, Mexico. Condor. 2005;107: 228–43.
Deppe JL, Rotenberry JT. Scale-dependent habitat use by fall migratory birds: vegetation structure, floristics, and geography. Ecol Monogr. 2008;78: 461–87.
Deppe JL, Ward MP, Bolus RT, Diehl RH, Celis-Murillo A, Zenzal TJ, et al. Fat, weather, and date affect migratory songbirds' departure decisions, routes, and time it takes to cross the Gulf of Mexico. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112: E6331–8.
Deutschlander ME, Muheim R. Fuel reserves affect migratory orientation of thrushes and sparrows both before and after crossing an ecological barrier near their breeding grounds. J Avian Biol. 2009;40: 85–9.
Dossman BC, Mitchell GW, Norris DR, Taylor PD, Guglielmo CG, Matthews SN, et al. The effects of wind and fuel stores on stopover departure behavior across a migratory barrier. Behav Ecol. 2016;27: 567–74.
Dossman BC, Matthews SN, Rodewald PG. An experimental examination of the influence of energetic condition on the stopover behavior of a Nearctic–Neotropical migratory songbird, the American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla). Auk. 2018;135: 91–100.
Feldman RE, Dorantes EA. La fenología de frutos de la duna costera de la Península de Yucatán. Desde Herb CICY. 2017;9: 77–82.
Feldman RE, Žemaitė I, Miller-Rushing AJ. How training citizen scientists affects the accuracy and precision of phenological data. Int J Biometeorol. 2018;62: 1421–35.
Ferretti A, Maggini I, Lupi S, Cardinale M, Fusani L. The amount of available food affects diurnal locomotor activity in migratory songbirds during stopover. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 19027.
Gallinat AS, Primack RB, Willis CG, Nordt B, Stevens AD, Fahey R, et al. Patterns and predictors of fleshy fruit phenology at five international botanical gardens. Am J Bot. 2018;105: 1824–34.
Gauthreaux SA. A radar and direct visual study of passerine spring migration in southern Louisiana. Auk. 1971;88: 343–65.
Greenberg R, Niven DK, Hopp S, Boone C. Frugivory and coexistence in a resident and a migratory vireo on the Yucatan Peninsula. Condor. 1993;95: 990–9.
Greenberg R, Foster MS, Marquez-Valdelamar L. The role of the White-Eyed Vireo in the dispersal of Bursera fruit on the Yucatan Peninsula. J Trop Ecol. 1995;11: 619–39.
Gwinner E, Schwabl H, Schwabl-Benzinger I. Effects of food-deprivation on migratory restlessness and diurnal activity in the garden warbler Sylvia borin. Oecologia. 1988;77: 321–6.
Hedenström A. Adaptations to migration in birds: behavioural strategies, morphology and scaling effects. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;363: 287–99.
Horton KG, Van Doren BM, La Sorte FA, Cohen EB, Clipp HL, Buler JJ, et al. Holding steady: little change in intensity or timing of bird migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25: 1106–18.
Johnson AB, Winker K. Autumn stopover near the Gulf of Honduras by Nearctic–Neotropic migrants. Wilson J Ornithol. 2008;120: 277–85.
Ke WJ, He P, Peng HB, Choi CY, Zhang SD, Melville DS, et al. Migration timing influences the responses of birds to food shortage at their refuelling site. Ibis. 2019;161: 908–14.
Klaassen M, Biebach H. Energetics of fattening and starvation in the long-distance migratory garden warbler, Sylvia borin, during the migratory phase. J Comp Physiol B. 1994;164: 362–71.
Klinner T, Buddemeier J, Bairlein F, Schmaljohann H. Decision-making in migratory birds at stopover: an interplay of energy stores and feeding conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2020;74: 10.
La Sorte FA, Hochachka WM, Farnsworth A, Sheldon D, Fink D, Geevarghese J, et al. Migration timing and its determinants for nocturnal migratory birds during autumn migration. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84: 1202–12.
La Sorte FA, Fink D, Hochachka WM, Kelling S. Convergence of broad-scale migration strategies in terrestrial birds. Proc R Soc B. 2016;283: 20152588.
Lafleur JM, Buler JJ, Moore FR. Geographic position and landscape composition explain regional patterns of migrating landbird distributions during spring stopover along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Landscape Ecol. 2016;31: 1697–709.
Lind J, Cresswell W. Anti-predation behaviour during bird migration; the benefit of studying multiple behavioural dimensions. J Ornithol. 2006;147: 310–6.
Lindström Å, Alerstam T. Optimal fat loads in migrating birds: a test of the time-minimization hypothesis. Am Nat. 1992;140: 477–91.
Lindström Å, Piersma T. Mass changes in migrating birds: the evidence for fat and protein storage re-examined. Ibis. 1993;135: 70–8.
Loria DE, Moore FR. Energy demands of migration on red-eyed vireos VireoOlivaceus. Behav Ecol. 1990;1: 24–35.
Lupi S, Maggini I, Goymann W, Cardinale M, Rojas Mora A, Fusani L. Effects of body condition and food intake on stop-over decisions in Garden Warblers and European Robins during spring migration. J Ornithol. 2017;158: 989–99.
Ma Z, Hua N, Peng H-B, Choi C, Battley PF, Zhou Q, et al. Differentiating between stopover and staging sites: functions of the southern and northern Yellow Sea for long-distance migratory shorebirds. J Avian Biol. 2013;44: 504–12.
Macleod R, Barnett P, Clark JA, Cresswell W. Body mass change strategies in blackbirds Turdus merula: the starvation-predation risk trade-off. J Anim Ecol. 2005;74: 292–302.
Maggini I, Trez M, Cardinale M, Fusani L. Stopover dynamics of 12 passerine migrant species in a small Mediterranean island during spring migration. J Ornithol. 2020;161: 793–802.
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.
Marshall TJ, Dick MF, Guglielmo CG. Seasonal dietary shifting in yellow-rumped warblers is unrelated to macronutrient targets. Comp Biochem Physiol Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2016;192: 57–63.
McCabe JD, Olsen BJ. Landscape-scale habitat availability, and not local geography, predicts migratory landbird stopover across the Gulf of Maine. J Avian Biol. 2015a;46: 395–405.
McCabe JD, Olsen BJ. Tradeoffs between predation risk and fruit resources shape habitat use of landbirds during autumn migration. Auk. 2015b;132: 903–13.
McWilliams SR, Kearney SB, Karasov WH. Diet preferences of warblers for specific fatty acids in relation to nutritional requirements and digestive capabilities. J Avian Biol. 2002;33: 167–74.
McWilliams SR, Guglielmo CG, Pierce BJ, Klaassen M. Flying, fasting, and feeding in birds during migration: a nutritional and physiological ecology perspective. J Avian Biol. 2004;35: 377–93.
Mehlman DW, Mabey SE, Ewert DN, Duncan C, Abel B, Cimbrich D, et al. Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory landbirds. Auk. 2005;122: 1281–90.
Moermond TC, Denslow JS. Fruit choice in neotropical birds: effects of fruit type and accessibility on selectivity. J Anim Ecol. 1983;52: 407–20.
Moore FR. Biology of landbird migrants: a stopover perspective. Wilson J Ornithol. 2018;130: 1–12.
Moore FR, Kerlinger P. Stopover and fat deposition by North American wood-warblers (Parulinae) following spring migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Oecologia. 1987;74: 47–54.
Moore FR, Kerlinger P, Simons TR. Stopover on a Gulf Coast barrier island by spring trans-gulf migrants. Wilson Bull. 1990;102: 487–500.
Moore FR, Woodrey MS, Buler JJ, Woltmann S, Simons TR. Understanding the stopover of migratory birds: a scale dependent approach. In: Ralph CJ, Rich TD (eds. ). Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the third international partners in flight conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191; Albany. 2005. p 684–9
Moore FR, Covino KM, Lewis WB, Zenzal TJ, Benson TJ. Effect of fuel deposition rate on departure fuel load of migratory songbirds during spring stopover along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. J Avian Biol. 2017;48: 123–32.
Norris DR, Marra PP, Kyser TK, Sherry TW, Ratcliffe LM. Tropical winter habitat limits reproductive success on the temperate breeding grounds in a migratory bird. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;271: 59–64.
Parrish JD. Patterns of frugivory and energetic condition in Nearctic landbirds during autumn migration. Condor. 1997;99: 681–97.
Parrish JD. Behavioral, energetic, and conservation implications of foraging plasticity during migration. Stud Avian Biol. 2000;20: 53–70.
Paxton KL, Moore FR. Carry-over effects of winter habitat quality on en route timing and condition of a migratory passerine during spring migration. J Avian Biol. 2015;46: 495–506.
Pyle P. Identification guide to North American Birds. Part 1. Point Reyes: State Creek Press; 1997.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
Raim A. A radio transmitter attachment for small passerines. Bird-Banding. 1978;49: 326–32.
Rappole JH, Warner DW. Relationships between behavior, physiology and weather in avian transients at a migration stopover site. Oecologia. 1976;26: 193–212.
Reed TE, Jenouvrier S, Visser ME. Phenological mismatch strongly affects individual fitness but not population demography in a woodland passerine. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82: 131–44.
Schaefer HM, Schaefer V. The fruits of selectivity: how birds forage on Goupia glabra fruits of different ripeness. J Ornithol. 2006;147: 638–43.
Schaefer HM, Schmidt V. Feeding strategies and food intake of Blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) consuming ripe or unripe fruits and insects. J Ornithol. 2002;143: 341–50.
Schaub M, Jenni L, Bairlein F. Fuel stores, fuel accumulation, and the decision to depart from a migration stopover site. Behav Ecol. 2008;19: 657–66.
Schmaljohann H, Eikenaar C. How do energy stores and changes in these affect departure decisions by migratory birds? A critical view on stopover ecology studies and some future perspectives. J Comp Physiol A. 2017;203: 411–29.
Schofield LN, Deppe JL, Zenzal TJ, Ward MP, Diehl RH, Bolus RT, et al. Using automated radio telemetry to quantify activity patterns of songbirds during stopover. Auk. 2018;135: 949–63.
Sillett TS, Holmes RT. Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout its annual cycle. J Anim Ecol. 2002;71: 296–308.
Skrip MM, Bauchinger U, Goymann W, Fusani L, Cardinale M, Alan RR, et al. Migrating songbirds on stopover prepare for, and recover from, oxidative challenges posed by long-distance flight. Ecol Evol. 2015;5: 3198–209.
Smetzer JR, King DI. Prolonged stopover and consequences of migratory strategy on local-scale movements within a regional songbird staging area. Auk. 2018;135: 547–60.
Smith SB, McWilliams SR. Patterns of fuel use and storage in migrating passerines in relation to fruit resources at autumn stopover sites. Auk. 2010;127: 108–18.
Smith AD, McWilliams SR. What to do when stopping over: behavioral decisions of a migrating songbird during stopover are dictated by initial change in their body condition and mediated by key environmental conditions. Behav Ecol. 2014;25: 1423–35.
Smith RJ, Moore FR. Arrival timing and seasonal reproductive performance in a long-distance migratory landbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2005;57: 231–9.
Smith RJ, Moore FR, May CA. Stopover habitat along the shoreline of northern Lake Huron, Michigan: emergent aquatic insects as a food resource for spring migrating landbirds. Auk. 2007;124: 107–21.
Smolinsky JA, Diehl RH, Radzio TA, Delaney DK, Moore FR. Factors influencing the movement biology of migrant songbirds confronted with an ecological barrier. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2013;67: 2041–51.
Solomon LE. Stopover ecology of Neotropical migratory songbirds in the northern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Master's Thesis. Charleston: Eastern Illinois University; 2016.
Suomala RW, Morris SR, Babbitt KJ, Lee TD. Migrant songbird species distribution and habitat use during stopover on two islands in the Gulf of Maine. Wilson J Ornithol. 2010;122: 725–37.
Valdez-Hernández M, Andrade JL, Jackson PC, Rebolledo-Vieyra M. Phenology of five tree species of a tropical dry forest in Yucatan, Mexico: effects of environmental and physiological factors. Plant Soil. 2010;329: 155–71.
Wheelwright NT. Seasonal changes in food preferences of American robins in captivity. Auk. 1988;105: 374–8.
Woodworth BK, Francis CM, Taylor PD. Inland flights of young red-eyed vireos Vireo olivaceus in relation to survival and habitat in a coastal stopover landscape. J Avian Biol. 2014;45: 387–95.
Zenzal TJ, Fish AC, Jones TM, Ospina EA, Moore FR. Observations of predation and anti-predator behavior of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds during migratory stopover. Southeast Nat. 2013;12: N21–5.
Bi-Yun Jia, Zhen-Qin Zhu, Wen-Jing Zhu, et al. Offspring number and composition influence parental care strategy and offspring survival in the azure-winged magpie. Animal Behaviour, 2025, 222: 123100.
DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2025.123100
2.
Xueli Zhang, Zhen Zhang, Wenjing Lu, et al. Extra‐pair paternity enhances the reproductive fitness of urban Chinese blackbird. Journal of Avian Biology, 2025, 2025(1)
DOI:10.1111/jav.03129
3.
Fangyuan Liu, Lifang Gao, Qian Wang, et al. Giant babax (Babax waddelli) helpers cheat at provisioning nestlings in poor conditions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2023, 77(1)
DOI:10.1007/s00265-022-03279-2
4.
Zhen-Qin Zhu, Shu-Mei Zi, Li-Fang Gao, et al. A diagnosis model of parental care: How parents optimize their provisioning strategy in brood reduction?. Current Zoology, 2023, 69(4): 385.
DOI:10.1093/cz/zoac064
5.
Gary Ritchison, Lauren Lewis, C. Adam Heist. Provisioning behavior of male and female Loggerhead Shrikes. Avian Biology Research, 2022, 15(2): 93.
DOI:10.1177/17581559221092692
Table
1.
Factors that might influence the egg's fresh mass in the Grey-backed Shrike
Generalized linear mixed model parameters
Fixed effects
β ± SE
n
t
P
Intercept
4.274 ± 0.094
151
45.618
< 0.001
Clutch initiation date
– 0.002 ± 0.003
151
– 0.555
0.580
Laying sequence
0.058 ± 0.016
151
3.697
< 0.001
Random effects
β ± SD
n
Results of VCA (%)
Nest identity
0.097 ± 0.311
151
66.90
Years
0.001 ± 0.001
151
0.69
Residual
0.047 ± 0.217
151
32.41
SE of fixed effects is the standard error of the mean; SD of random effects is the square root of the variance. The explanations apply also to Table 2, 3 and 4
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds