Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo científico |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
Oecologia
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41514035/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- Female chronotype relates to lay date but not fitness in an island population of great tits. Strauß, Aurelia F T Tomotani, Barbara M Helm, Barbara Visser, Marcel E Animals Female Chronotype Passeriformes Seasons Reproduction Organisms use diel timing mechanisms to anticipate predictable daily environmental fluctuations, such as the start and end of the day light period. There is often ample intraspecific variation in this diel timing, with individuals being consistently active earlier or later than others in the population and therefore having early or late chronotypes. In tit species, early-active males have higher rates of extrapair paternity, and early-active females might have more offspring, thereby increasing their fitness. However, studies on these fitness consequences of chronotype tend to be inconclusive, based on small sample sizes and confounded with seasonal effects on activity timing. Here, we measured the fitness of standardised chronotype in female great tits (Parus major) across three breeding seasons. We extracted activity onsets, when females first left the nest in the morning, from recordings of nest temperatures during incubation and chick provisioning. To account for seasonal and daily variation in the timing of activity, we expressed these onsets relative to the conspecifics active on the same day. The chronotypes of 164 females were tested for differences in fitness and life-history parameters from brood monitoring data. We show that chronotype was not significantly related to fitness parameters, such as the number of fledglings and hatchlings, nor to offspring and female condition. However, extremely early and late chronotypes started breeding later in our population, but not in the re-analysed datasets from three other populations. Our findings suggest that chronotype is not under strong selection, or perhaps under fluctuating selection, allowing high between-individual variation to persist.