4.5 Article

Does the temporal mismatch hypothesis match in boreal populations?

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 176, 期 2, 页码 595-605

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-3022-7

关键词

Caterpillar peak; Fecundity; Phenological shifts; Timing-related constraints; Time-series data

类别

资金

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. Research Council for Biosciences and Environment [128193]
  3. Thule Institute of the University of Oulu

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The temporal mismatch hypothesis suggests that fitness is related to the degree of temporal synchrony between the energetic needs of the offspring and their food supply. The hypothesis has been a basis in studying the influence of climate warming on nature. This study enhances the knowledge on prevalence of temporal mismatches and their consequences in boreal populations, and questions the role of the temporal mismatch hypothesis as the principal explanation for the evolution of timing of breeding. To test this, we examined if synchrony with caterpillar prey or timing of breeding per se better explains reproductive output in North European parid populations. We compared responses of temperate-origin species, the great tit (Parus major) and the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), and a boreal species, the willow tit (Poecile montanus). We found that phenologies of caterpillars and great tits, but not of blue tits, have advanced during the past decades. Phenologies correlated with spring temperatures that may function as cues about the timing of the food peak for great and blue tits. The breeding of great and blue tits and their caterpillar food remained synchronous. Synchrony explained breeding success better than timing of breeding alone. However, the synchrony effect arose only in certain conditions, such as with high caterpillar abundances or high breeding densities. Breeding before good synchrony seems advantageous at high latitudes, especially in the willow tit. Thus, the temporal mismatch hypothesis appears insufficient in explaining the evolution of timing of breeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据