UNM Researchers Discover Why Birds Vary in Rates of Egg Production

The alba­tross and the hum­ming­bird have some­thing in com­mon – both are very slow egg pro­duc­ers for their size. A new study by UNM researchers shows how and why wild bird species vary in their rates of egg production.

The study was a col­lab­o­ra­tion between Dis­tin­guished Pro­fes­sor James H. Brown, Assis­tant Pro­fes­sor Chris Witt, and Ph.D. can­di­date Natalie Wright, all of the UNM Biol­ogy Depart­ment. Other mem­bers of the research team included: a long­time col­lab­o­ra­tor of Brown’s, Pro­fes­sor Richard Sibly, Uni­ver­sity of Read­ing (United King­dom); a for­mer post­doc of Brown’s who is now a pro­fes­sor at Yale, Wal­ter Jetz; and an expert on evo­lu­tion­ary sta­tis­ti­cal analy­ses Chris Ven­ditti, Uni­ver­sity of Hull (United Kingdom).

An animal’s pro­duc­tiv­ity is the rate of pro­duc­tion of bio­mass (babies, eggs, etc),” explained Witt. “Darwin’s the­ory tells us that indi­vid­u­als should seek to max­i­mize this rate in order to max­i­mize their con­tri­bu­tion of genes to the next gen­er­a­tion (i.e. their fitness).

How­ever, lower pro­duc­tiv­ity some­times leads to higher fit­ness – it’s slightly coun­ter­in­tu­itive, but think of the poten­tial advan­tages of pro­duc­ing a few high qual­ity off­spring ver­sus many low qual­ity ones.”

As you get smaller, you get more pro­duc­tive – exactly what we would pre­dict from Brown’s meta­bolic the­ory – that smaller things, because of their dis­pro­por­tion­ately higher meta­bolic rates, have more excess energy to spend on repro­duc­tion,” said Witt. “What Brown’s the­ory didn’t pre­dict was that the rela­tion­ship would be curvi­lin­ear – mean­ing that at the very small­est end of the spec­trum of bird sizes, there is no addi­tional pro­duc­tiv­ity gained by becom­ing smaller – there may be a most pro­duc­tive body size, some­where between 10-100g.”

Birds that feed on abun­dant, energy rich food resources don’t just con­vert it into more productivity.

Actu­ally the oppo­site is the case: birds with the best food have the low­est pro­duc­tiv­i­ties,” said Witt. “Why? We think it’s because these par­tic­u­lar good food resources are also asso­ci­ated with escape from preda­tors. If you can obtain your food quickly with­out expo­sure to preda­tors, you have high sur­vival rates. The result is that nat­ural selec­tion favors qual­ity over quantity.”

Hum­ming­birds can get a lot of energy quickly from nec­tar, and don’t have to be exposed to preda­tors for long. Like­wise, nighthawks feed on fly­ing insects that are abun­dant at dusk and dawn, allow­ing them to hide from preda­tors most of the day and night. Alba­trosses and other birds that spend all their time on the open ocean or on remote islands rarely encounter preda­tors. Under these con­di­tions, evo­lu­tion favors slow growth and repro­duc­tion, prob­a­bly because strong immune sys­tems and high longevity become para­mount to evo­lu­tion­ary fitness.

The researchers also saw direct effects of energy lim­i­ta­tion on bird pro­duc­tiv­ity. “If the female alone cares for the young, she pro­duces less egg bio­mass – the parental care con­tributed by the father or by coop­er­a­tive groups trans­lates into higher pro­duc­tiv­ity,” said Witt.

Years ago, Brown and Sibly ana­lyzed the causes of vari­a­tion in pro­duc­tiv­ity across mam­mals. They found that mam­mals with abun­dant, rich food resources such as marine and large graz­ing mam­mals tended to have higher pro­duc­tiv­ity – mean­ing that when more energy was avail­able, more energy was being allo­cated towards repro­duc­tive bio­mass. This new study on birds found the oppo­site effect. Marine birds like alba­trosses have among the low­est pro­duc­tiv­i­ties of all birds.

The researchers faced a few chal­lenges dur­ing the study. “There was no evo­lu­tion­ary tree avail­able for birds that encom­passed all of the species in our dataset, and to answer ques­tions about the evo­lu­tion of traits, you really need a hypoth­e­sis about how the species you’re inter­ested in are related to one another,” said Wright, who’s inter­ested in how and why cer­tain avian traits evolve.

So Witt and Wright esti­mated the evo­lu­tion­ary tree or phy­logeny of the 980 species by using DNA sequences avail­able in an online data­base called Gen­Bank and a pre­vi­ously pub­lished tree.

The phy­logeny or evo­lu­tion­ary tree was really very inter­est­ing because it showed that the con­nec­tions between lifestyle and pro­duc­tiv­ity that we found are things that have evolved mul­ti­ple times in the his­tory of birds,” said Brown.

There’s enor­mous vari­a­tion among birds,” said Witt. “Hav­ing an esti­mate of the tree allowed us to deter­mine how much of the vari­a­tion in pro­duc­tiv­ity was due to cur­rent lifestyle ver­sus evo­lu­tion­ary his­tory.” It turned out that both evo­lu­tion­ary his­tory and cur­rent lifestyle were impor­tant in deter­min­ing bird productivity.

Media Con­tact: Steve Carr (505) 277‑1821; email: scarr@unm.edu

Posted in Research, University News |