Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tinbergen, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Both, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tinbergen, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Both, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 10 No. 5: 504-509
© 1999 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Is clutch size individually optimized?

Joost M. Tinbergena and Christiaan Bothb

a Zoological Laboratory, Groningen University, PO Box 14, 9750 AA Haren, The Netherlands b Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Center for Terrestrial Ecology, PO Box 40, 6666 ZG Heteren, The Netherlands

Address correspondence to J. M. Tinbergen. E-mail: tinberge{at}biol.rug.nl .

Brood size manipulations were carried out to test whether clutch size variation in individual great tits (Parus major) controlled for laying date was tuned to their phenotypic quality and/or local food abundance (individual optimization hypothesis; IOH). Broods with different original clutch sizes, but equal hatching dates, were manipulated to a common brood size. A third brood was kept as a control. Under the IOH, we expected a positive association between reproductive success and original clutch size. Fledgling production varied in an inconclusive way after manipulation, with data from 1 out of 3 years favoring the IOH. The effect of manipulation on the probability of a second clutch was consistent with the IOH in another 1 out of the 3 years. When fitness accrued to second broods was also taken into consideration in terms of annual fledgling production, results from 2 out of 3 years tended to support the IOH. There was no effect of the manipulation on fitness (estimated as the number of recruits plus parents breeding in the next season). Both the clutch component (local recruitment) and the parental component (survival till next breeding season) varied inconclusively with respect to the IOH. On the basis of fitness measurements, the IOH could not be confirmed as an explanation for clutch size variation in this population. In 2 out of 3 years one of the three fitness components measured varied in accordance with the IOH. Overall the evidence for the IOH in this data set is therefore weak.

Key words: clutch size, brood size manipulation, fitness, great tits, individual optimization, Parus major, phenotypic quality.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
A. Husby, L. E.B. Kruuk, and M. E. Visser
Decline in the frequency and benefits of multiple brooding in great tits as a consequence of a changing environment
Proc R Soc B, May 22, 2009; 276(1663): 1845 - 1854.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
J. M. Tinbergen and J. J. Sanz
Strong evidence for selection for larger brood size in a great tit population
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2004; 15(4): 525 - 533.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.