Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T23:30:48.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritability of body size in a natural population of the Great Tit (Parus major) and its relation to age and environmental conditions during growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

A. J. Van Noordwijk ,
J. H. Van Balen  and
W. Scharloo
A. J. Van Noordwijk
Affiliation:
Department of Population and Evolutionary Biology, University of Utrecht, P.O. Box 80.055, NL-3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands Institute for Ecological Research, P.O. Box 40, NL-6666 GA Heteren, The Netherlands
J. H. Van Balen
Affiliation:
Institute for Ecological Research, P.O. Box 40, NL-6666 GA Heteren, The Netherlands
W. Scharloo
Affiliation:
Department of Population and Evolutionary Biology, University of Utrecht, P.O. Box 80.055, NL-3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We have analysed data on weight and tarsus length collected during a long-term study of natural populations of Great Tits to evaluate the relative importance of genetic variation in body size. Some of our data were collected over a 25-year period, and therefore include a relatively large sample of naturally occurring environmental conditions. An overall heritability estimate calculated from the uncorrected mean weights of breeding birds amounts to 0·5. This estimate is unlikely to be influenced by resemblance in environmental conditions between relatives. Heritability estimates based on the size of fledglings vary between zero and the value for adults, depending on the environmental conditions during growth. If the feeding conditions for the nestlings are poor, no resemblance between parents and offspring is observed. Selection against small nestlings acts strongly on the environmental variance. This is concluded from the higher heritability estimates in the same cohorts after survival for at least three months after fledging, compared to measurements on nestlings. Such selection acting differentially on the genetic and environmental components of the phenotypic variance has important consequences for our ability to make predictions of phenotypic change from measured natural selection. Nevertheless, the amount of genetic variation would allow rapid response should selection on adult size occur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 149 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Ankney, C. D. (1980). Egg weight, survival and growth of Lesser Snow Goose goslings. Journal of Wildlife Management 44, 174–182.Google Scholar
Askenmo, C. (1977). Effects of addition and removal of nestlings on nestling weight, nestling survival, and female weight loss in the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca (Pallas). Ornis Scandinavica 8, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Balen, J. H. (1967). The significance of variations in body weight and wing length in the Great Tit Parus major. Ardea 55, 1–59.Google Scholar
van Balen, J. H. (1973). A comparative study of the breeding ecology of the Great Tit Parus major in different habitats. Ardea 61, 1–93.Google Scholar
van Balen, J. H. (1980). Population fluctuations of the Great Tit and feeding conditions in winter. Ardea 68, 143–164.Google Scholar
van Balen, J. H. & Cavé, A. J. (1970). Survival and weight loss of nestling Great Tits, Parus major, in relation to brood-size and air temperature. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 20, 464–474.Google Scholar
Boag, P. T. & Grant, P. R. (1978). Heritability of external morphology in Darwin's finches. Nature 274, 793–794.Google Scholar
Boag, P. T. & Grant, P. R. (1981). Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin's Finches (Geospizinae) in the Galapagos. Science 214, 82–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke, M. de L. (1977). The breeding biology of the Manx Shearwater. D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bryant, D. M. (1978). Environmental influences on the growth and survival of nestling House Martins Delichon urbica. Ibis 120, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, G. A. (1979). Body weights of birds: a review. Condor 81, 193–202.Google Scholar
Dhondt, A. A. (1982). Heritability of blue tit tarsus length from normal and cross-fostered broods. Evolution 36, 418–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhondt, A. A., Eyckerman, R. & Huble, J. (1979). Will Great Tits become Little Tits? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 11, 289–294.Google Scholar
Drent, P. J. (1984). Mortality and dispersal in summer and its consequences for the density of Great Tits Parus major at the onset of autumn. Ardea 72, 127–162.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to quantitative genetics. Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1973). Replicated selection for body weight in mice. Genetical Research 22, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnett, M. C. (1981). Body size, its heritability and influence on juvenile survival among Great Tits Parus major. Ibis 123, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, P. R. (1972). Centripetal selection and the House Sparrow. Systematic Zoology 21, 23–30.Google Scholar
Haftorn, S. (1976). Variation in body weight, wing length and tail length in the Great Tit Parus major. Norwegian Journal of Zoology 24, 241–271.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. F. (1973). Evolution in the house sparrow. IV. Replicate studies in covariation. Systematic Zoology 22, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. F. & Fleischer, R. C. (1981). Overwinter mortality and sexual size dimorphism in the House Sparrow. Auk 98, 503–511.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. F., Niles, D. M. & Rowher, S. A. (1972). Hermon Bumpus and natural selection in the House Sparrow Passer domesticus. Evolution 26, 20–31.Google Scholar
Jones, P. J. (1973). Some aspects of the feeding ecology of the Great Tit Parus major. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kluyver, H. N. (1950). Daily routines of the Great Tit. Parus m. major L. Ardea 38, 99–135.Google Scholar
Kluyver, H. N. (1952). Notes on body weight and time of breeding in the Great Tit, Parus major L. Ardea 40, 123–141.Google Scholar
Marks, H. L. (1980). Feed efficiency of selected and nonselected Japanese Quail lines. Poultry Science 59, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, H. L. (1981). Selection environment influences on feed and water intake of Japanese Quail following longterm selection for 4-week body weight. Poultry Science 60, 2571–2580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R. & Watson, A. (1982). Heritability of egg-size, hatch weight, body weight, and viability in red Grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus). Auk 99, 683–686.Google Scholar
Murton, R. K., Westwood, N. J. & Isaacson, A. J. (1974). Factors affecting egg-weight, body-weight and the moult of the wood-pigeon Columba palumbus. Ibis 116, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J. (1982). Variation in body weight of the Great Tit, heritability and condition. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke nederlandse akademie van wetenschappen, Afdeling natuurkunde, Tweede reeks, 79, 9–12.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J. (1984). Quantitative genetics in natural populations of birds illustrated with examples from the Great Tit, Parus major. In Population Biology and Evolution (ed. Wohrmann, K. and Loeschcke, V.), pp. 67–79.) Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J. (1987). xycSib competition as an element of genotype-environment interaction for body size in the Great Tit, a preliminary report. In Population Genetics and Evolution (ed. G., de Jong). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag (In the press.)Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J., van Balen, J. H. & Scharloo, W. (1980). Heritability of ecologically important traits in the Great Tit. Ardea 68, 193–203.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J., van Balen, J. H. & Scharloo, W. (1981 a). Genetic and environmental variation in clutch size of the Great Tit. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 31, 342–372.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J., van Balen, J. H. & Scharloo, W. (1981 b). Genetic variation in the timing of reproduction in the Great Tit. Oecologia (Berlin) 49, 158–166.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J. & van Balen, J. H. (1988). The Great Tit. In Variation in Reproductive Success (ed. T., Clutton Brock), University of Chicago Press. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, A. J., Keizer, L. C. P., van Balen, J. H. & Scharloo, W. (1981 c). Genetic variation in egg dimensions in natural populations of the Great Tit. Genetica 55, 221–232.Google Scholar
O'Connor, R. J. (1977). Differential growth and body composition in altrical passerines. Ibis 119, 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donald, P. (1973). A further analysis of Bumpus' data on the intensity of natural selection. Evolution 27, 398–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, R. J. & Bhatti, M. A. (1982). Selection for feed efficiency in mice under ad libitum and restricted feeding terminated by fixed time or quantity of intake. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 24, 117–126.Google Scholar
Perrins, C. M. (1965). Population fluctuations and clutch size in the Great Tit Parus major L. Journal of Animal Ecology 34, 601–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrins, C. M. (1970). The timing of birds' breeding seasons. Ibis 112, 242–255.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. & Peters. S. (1981). Parental components of variance in growth rate and body size of nestling European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in eastern Pennsylvania. Auk 98, 39–48.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1981). The growth of mice selected for large and small size in relation to food intake and the efficiency of conversion. Genetical Research 38, 9–24.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1962). Changing the relative size of body parts of Drosophila by selection. Genetical Research 3, 169–180.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1964). The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. 7. The role of canalisation in the stability of growth relations. Genetical Research 5, 107–126.Google Scholar
Smith, J. N. M. (1981). Cowbird parasitism, lost fitness and the age of the host female in an island Song Sparrow population. Condor 83, 152–161.Google Scholar
Smith, J. N. M. & Dhondt, A. A. (1980). Experimental confirmation of heritable morphological variation in a natural population of Song Sparrows. Evolution 34, 1155–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. N. M. & Zach, R. (1979). Heritability of some morphological characters in the Song Sparrow. Evolution 33, 460–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, D. W. (1954). Trends in geographical variation in palearctic members of the genus Parus. Evolution 8, 19–28.Google Scholar
Svensson, L. (1970). Identification Guide to the European Passerines. Stockholm: Naturhistorisk Riksmuseet 152 pp.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. M. (1981). Foraging decisions in Starlings Sturnus vulgaris L. Ardea 69, 1–67.Google Scholar