Parus major Sándor Krisztina PhD student Supervisor Prof Liker András Email skrisztinaagmailcom Introduction plumage essential role in flying waterproofing social communication and thermoregulation ID: 1026874
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The effects of urbanization on plumage t..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. The effects of urbanization on plumage traits in great tits (Parus major)Sándor Krisztina, PhD studentSupervisor: Prof. Liker AndrásE-mail: s.krisztinaa@gmail.com
2. Introduction: plumageessential role in flying, waterproofing, social communication and thermoregulationindicator of body conditionquality of plumage determines the survival and success in reproduction of birds
3. IntroductionUrbanization: Rapid expansion, major impact on the environment Factors affecting plumage properties quantity and quality of food time available for molting overlapping with other activities temperature parasites stressDifferent conditionsSome of these factors are affected by urbanization strong drivers of fast evolutionary responses good opportunity to study the adaptability of species
4. Questions of my research:Does urbanization affect the:structural properties of flight feathers?structural properties of body feathers?number and density of body feathers? insulationflight performance1. Flight feathers2. Body feathers3. Feather density
5. Methodsmodel species: great tit (Parus major)two forest and two urban populationsForest near to SzentgálVilma-pusztaVeszprémBalatonfüredForest sites: Urban sites:
6. Question 1.Does urbanization affect the:structural properties of flight feathers?structural properties of body feathers?number and density of body feathers? insulationflight performance
7. Is there any difference betweenurban and forest birds’ flight feather structure?Hypothesis: In urban birds:lower quality and quantity of foodhigher stressPredictions: In urban birds:shorter feathers with thinner rachisaltered barb and barbule densityPoorer feather qualityQuestion 1.
8. wing and tail feathers from urban (n = 96) and forest (n = 115) great titsMeasurements:feather length (mm)rachis width (mm)barb density (nr. of barbs/cm; Fig. A)barbule density (nr. of barbules/mm; Fig. B)Statistical analyses:Linear models (LM): y ~ site + sex + age + year + site:sex + site:agePre-planned habitat comparisons (2 urban vs. 2 forest site) - linear contrasts between groups calculated from LM models1. Methods
9. 1. ResultsWing feathers:significant habitat:age interaction in rachis width and barbule density models the rachis of urban young birds’ is narrower and the barbule density is higherTail feathers: no significant habitat effects* positive values indicate higher values in urban birds*Rachis width of young birds’ wing feathersBarbule density of young birds’ wing feathers
10. 1. Discussionhabitat difference between only some of the variables studied and only for young birdsyoung birds grow their feathers in the nest during individual development trade-off between feather structure and other processesfood shortages in cities limit the development of nestlings, while in forests not more significant trade-offs in urban sitesthese results are in line with our predictions: poorer quality feathers in urban young birds e.g. thinner, less air-transmissible feathers altered aerodynamic forces on wings altered flight performanceno such differences (or just trend-like) in adult birds – those who survive at least until their second year of life can –mostly– eliminate the negative effects of the urban environment on wing featherse.g. because feather growing is no longer in trade-off e.g. with ontogeny, so they can invest almost as much in their feathers as forest birds
11. Question 2.Does urbanization affect the:structural properties of flight feathers?structural properties of body feathers?number and density of body feathers? insulationflight performance
12. Is there any difference betweenurban and forest birds’ body feather structure?Hypothesis: In urban birds:lower quality and quantity of foodhigher temperature Predictions: In urban birds:shorter body featherslower barb densitylower insulation areaQuestion 2.Feathers’ insulation capability is affectedPennaceaous sectionwaterproofingcommunicationPlumulaceous sectioninsulationcommunication
13. body feathers from urban (n = 96) and forest (n = 115) great titsMeasurements:pennaceous length (mm)pennaceous barb density (barb/mm)plumulaceous length (mm)plumulaceous barb density (barb/mm)Statistical analyses:Linear models (LM): y ~ site + sex + age + year + site:sex + site:agePre-planned habitat comparisons2. MethodsPennaceaous sectionwaterproofingcommunicationPlumulaceous sectioninsulationcommunication
14. 2. ResultsPennaceous section:longer and less dense in urban young birdsPlumulaceous section:longer and trend-like less dense in urban birds* positive values indicate higher values in urban birds*Plumulaceous section of body feathers:Length DensityPennaceous section of body feathers of young birds:Length Density
15. 2. DiscussionPennaceous section:habitat differences only between young birds - environmental constraint? - weaker water repellency and resistance to radiation - suggesting a lower feather quality these feathers were grown few weeks after fledging – when birds are still inexperienced foragers + food limitation in cities lower feather quality in urban young birdsadaptation to warmer climate? – better heat dissipation? Plumulaceous section:longer and trend-like lower density in urban birds – not only in young birdsenvironmental constraint – even the experienced birds are unable to eliminate the negative effects of food limitation?adaptation to warmer urban climate – the observed structure is more advantageous in heat dissipation than in insulation?further field experiments are needed to understand the causes and consequences of the observed properties
16. Does urbanization affect the:structural properties of flight feathers?structural properties of body feathers?number and density of body feathers? insulatonflight performanceQuestion 3.
17. Is there any difference betweenurban and forest birds’ feather number and density ?Question 3.Feathers’ insulation capability is affectedHypothesis: In urban birds:lower quality and quantity of foodhigher temperature Predictions: In urban birds:fewer featherslower feather density
18. 3. Methods: data collection on the fieldfeathers are growing from distinct feather tractsthe number of feathers within tracts are determined during embryogenic development nr. of feathers are fixed at hatch NEW METHOD: counting feathers on living birdsTook photos on 6-9 days old nestlings’ sternal region of ventral feather tract3 nestlings / broodWhy this age?Feathers are already emerged from under the skinThey are covered by sheaths they don’t overlap
19. 3. Methods: measurements on photographs photos from 95 urban and 73 forest nestlings (from 42 and 29 broods)we determined the scale for each photooutlined the examined areaMeasured traits:number of feathersarea of the feather tract (mm2)density of feathers (nr / mm2)Statistical analyses:Linear mixed-effect models (LME): y ~ site + body mass + feather length + random factor: nest IDPre-planned habitat comparisons
20. 3. ResultsNumber of feathersFeather densityArea* positive values indicate higher values in urban birds*Urban nestlings have significantly:fewer feathershigher feather densitysmaller feather tract area
21. 3. DiscussionURBAN sites: lower number of feathersTwo potential explanations: adaptation to warmer urban climate?environmental constraint?URBAN sites: higher feather densitycontradicts with our expectations caused by the disproportionally smaller feather tract area in urban birds relatively smaller feather-covered body surface better heat dissipation It is possible that urban birds could achieve increased heat stress tolerance not only by reduced feather number but also via relatively larger bare body surfaces.
22. Overall summarythe first studies to examine the structure and number of feathers in the context of urbanizationI found that urbanization affects several properties of the plumage: Structure of flight feathers: affected only in young birds – food limitation during the nestling stage? Vital in flight performance experienced birds grow similar quality feathers. Structure of body feathers: different effects on parts with different roles – effects of different factors like food limitation and/or adaptation? Number and density of body feathers and the size of the feather tracts – suggesting better heat dissipation in urban birds - adaptation to urban climate and/or food limitation? these are descriptive studies describing interesting patterns in urbanization context that open up many questionscan serve as a basis for many interesting experimental studies in the future, contributing to the expansion of urban ecology knowledge
23. Thank you for your attention!Acknowledgement:Seress GáborSinkovics CsengePéter ÁronFemke CnossenKrissie van den HeuvelAnudari Batsaikhanand the other members of the Evolutionary Ecology Research Group
24. Publications:Sándor, K., Liker, A., Sikovics, Cs., Péter, Á., Seress, G. (2020) Urban nestlings have reduced number of feathers in great tits (Parus major). (Kézirat megírás alatt)Sándor, K., Miklósi, Á. (under rewiev) Report on tool use in Atlantic puffins may misguide evolutionary investigations. Submitted to Frontiers in Psychology.Seress, G., Sándor, K., Evans, K. L, Liker, A. (2020) Food availability limits avian reproduction in the city: an experimental study on great tits (Parus major). Animal Ecology. Doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13211Péter, Á., Sándor, K., Seress, G., Klucsik, P. K., Vincze, E., Liker, A. (2020) The effect of artificial light at night on the biomass of caterpillars feeding in urban tree canopies. Urban Ecosystems. doi: 10.1007/s11252-020-00999-zSinkovics, Cs., Seress, G., Fábián, V., Sándor, K., Liker, A., 2018. Obtaining accurate measurements of the size and volume of insects in nestling diet from video-recordings. Journal of Field Ornithology 0:1-8,. doi: 10.1111/jofo.12248Pap, P. L., Osváth, G., Sándor, K., Vincze, O., Bărbos, L., Marton, A., Nudds, R. L. and Vágási, C. I., 2015. Interspecific variation in the structural properties of flight feathers in birds indicates adaptation to flight requirements and habitat. Functional Ecology 29: 746–757. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12419Conference presentations and posters:Sándor, K., Liker, A., Sinkovics, Cs., Péter, Á., Seress, G. 2020. Effects of urbanization on feather number of great tit (Parus major) nestlings. Darwin Days, 2020. 11-13., TihanySándor, K., Liker, A., Sinkovics, Cs., Péter, Á., Seress, G. 2019. Effects of urbanization on feather number of great tit (Parus major) nestlings. Poszter. 12th European Ornithologists’ Union Congress, 26 – 30 August 2019, Cluj Napoca, Romania.Sándor, K., Liker, A., Sinkovics, Cs., Péter, Á., Seress, G., 2018. A városi környezet hatása a széncinegék (Parus major) tollainak szerkezetére. Magyar Etológiai Társaság XX. Konferenciája, 2018. november 23-25., Kolozsvár.Sándor, K., Liker, A., Sinkovics, Cs., Péter, Á., Seress, G. 2018. A városi környezet hatása a széncinegék (Parus major) tollainak szerkezetére. 1. Urbanizációs Ökológia Konferencia, 2018. október 19-20., Veszprém.Sándor, K., Liker, A., Sinkovics, Cs., Péter, Á., Seress, G. 2018. A városi környezet hatása a széncinege (Parus major) fiókák testtollainak számára. Poszter 1. Urbanizációs Ökológia Konferencia, 2018. október 19-20., Veszprém.Sándor, K., Liker, A., Sinkovics, Cs., Seress, G., 2018. A városi környezet hatása a széncinegék (Parus major) tollainak szerkezetére. Poszter, 11. Magyar Ökológus Kongresszus, 2018. augusztus 28-30., Nyíregyháza.