4.7 Article

Food Allocation under Asynchronous Hatching Conditions of Great Tits (Parus major)

期刊

ANIMALS
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ani13091443

关键词

hatching asynchrony; brood reduction; breeding strategies; food allocation rules; nestling provisioning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine if the brood reduction hypothesis could explain asynchronous hatching in passerines. Infrared cameras were used to observe the nest boxes of great tits, and it was found that there was no significant difference in feeding between hatchlings of different orders. Additionally, no selective distribution of food to older nestlings was observed over time. Therefore, alternative hypotheses should be explored to explain the asynchronous hatching in passerines.
The brood reduction hypothesis, which explains asynchronous hatching in birds, as an adaptation that enables selective survival of older nestlings when availability of food is unpredictable. This study was conducted in order to determine whether the brood reduction hypothesis can explain asynchronous hatching in passerines. Infrared cameras were installed inside nest boxes where great tits (Parus major) were attempting to reproduce in order to determine whether the parents practiced selective feeding of older nestlings. According to the results of the study, no significant difference was observed between the hatching order and the average number of feedings per nestling. In addition, when examining the distribution of food according to hatching order over time, every 30 min, beginning at 9 a.m., selective distribution of food to older nestlings was not observed. In conclusion, use of the brood reduction hypothesis, which supports selective provision of beneficial feeding of older and larger nestlings, to explain the asynchronous hatching of passerines is problematic, thus conduct of future studies focusing on other hypotheses in order to explain the asynchronous hatching of this passerine bird will be necessary.

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

4.7
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