Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction

Abstract Although the costs of reproduction are predicted to vary with the quality of the breeding habitat thereby affecting population dynamics and life‐history trade‐offs, empirical evidence for this pattern remains sparse and equivocal. Costs of reproduction can operate through immediate ecologic...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vanja T. Michel, Matthias Tschumi, Beat Naef‐Daenzer, Herbert Keil, Martin U. Grüebler
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-04-01
Series:Ecology and Evolution
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8859
_version_ 1797924611148480512
author Vanja T. Michel
Matthias Tschumi
Beat Naef‐Daenzer
Herbert Keil
Martin U. Grüebler
author_facet Vanja T. Michel
Matthias Tschumi
Beat Naef‐Daenzer
Herbert Keil
Martin U. Grüebler
author_sort Vanja T. Michel
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Although the costs of reproduction are predicted to vary with the quality of the breeding habitat thereby affecting population dynamics and life‐history trade‐offs, empirical evidence for this pattern remains sparse and equivocal. Costs of reproduction can operate through immediate ecological mechanisms or through delayed intrinsic mechanisms. Ignoring these separate pathways might hinder the identification of costs and the understanding of their consequences. We experimentally investigated the survival costs of reproduction for adult little owls (Athene noctua) within a gradient of habitat quality. We supplemented food to nestlings, thereby relieving the parents’ effort for brood provisioning. We used radio‐tracking and Bayesian multistate modeling based on marked recapture and dead recovery to estimate survival rates of adult little owls across the year as a function of food supplementation and habitat characteristics. Food supplementation to nestlings during the breeding season increased parental survival not only during the breeding season but also during the rest of the year. Thus, the low survival of parents of unfed broods likely represents both, strong ecological and strong intrinsic costs of reproduction. However, while immediate ecological costs occurred also in high‐quality habitats, intrinsic costs carrying over to the post‐breeding period occurred only in low‐quality habitats. Our results suggest that immediate costs resulting from ecological mechanisms such as predation, are high also in territories of high habitat quality. Long‐term costs resulting from intrinsic trade‐offs, however, are only paid in low‐quality habitats. Consequently, differential effects of habitat quality on immediate ecological and delayed intrinsic mechanisms can mask the increase of costs of reproduction in low‐quality breeding habitats. Intrinsic costs may represent an underrated mechanism of habitat quality affecting adult survival rate thereby considerably accelerating population decline in degrading habitats. This study therefore highlights the need for a long‐term perspective to fully assess the costs of reproduction and the role of habitat quality in modifying these costs.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T15:03:39Z
format Article
id doaj.art-eb943088b5fc41d68660e7634f5ff6e9
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2045-7758
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T15:03:39Z
publishDate 2022-04-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Ecology and Evolution
spelling doaj.art-eb943088b5fc41d68660e7634f5ff6e92023-02-15T09:01:29ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582022-04-01124n/an/a10.1002/ece3.8859Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproductionVanja T. Michel0Matthias Tschumi1Beat Naef‐Daenzer2Herbert Keil3Martin U. Grüebler4Swiss Ornithological Institute Sempach SwitzerlandSwiss Ornithological Institute Sempach SwitzerlandSwiss Ornithological Institute Sempach SwitzerlandForschungsgemeinschaft zur Erhaltung einheimischer Eulen e.V. Oberriexingen GermanySwiss Ornithological Institute Sempach SwitzerlandAbstract Although the costs of reproduction are predicted to vary with the quality of the breeding habitat thereby affecting population dynamics and life‐history trade‐offs, empirical evidence for this pattern remains sparse and equivocal. Costs of reproduction can operate through immediate ecological mechanisms or through delayed intrinsic mechanisms. Ignoring these separate pathways might hinder the identification of costs and the understanding of their consequences. We experimentally investigated the survival costs of reproduction for adult little owls (Athene noctua) within a gradient of habitat quality. We supplemented food to nestlings, thereby relieving the parents’ effort for brood provisioning. We used radio‐tracking and Bayesian multistate modeling based on marked recapture and dead recovery to estimate survival rates of adult little owls across the year as a function of food supplementation and habitat characteristics. Food supplementation to nestlings during the breeding season increased parental survival not only during the breeding season but also during the rest of the year. Thus, the low survival of parents of unfed broods likely represents both, strong ecological and strong intrinsic costs of reproduction. However, while immediate ecological costs occurred also in high‐quality habitats, intrinsic costs carrying over to the post‐breeding period occurred only in low‐quality habitats. Our results suggest that immediate costs resulting from ecological mechanisms such as predation, are high also in territories of high habitat quality. Long‐term costs resulting from intrinsic trade‐offs, however, are only paid in low‐quality habitats. Consequently, differential effects of habitat quality on immediate ecological and delayed intrinsic mechanisms can mask the increase of costs of reproduction in low‐quality breeding habitats. Intrinsic costs may represent an underrated mechanism of habitat quality affecting adult survival rate thereby considerably accelerating population decline in degrading habitats. This study therefore highlights the need for a long‐term perspective to fully assess the costs of reproduction and the role of habitat quality in modifying these costs.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8859carry‐over effectsfood supplementation experimenthabitat degradationhabitat qualitylife‐history trade‐offparental care
spellingShingle Vanja T. Michel
Matthias Tschumi
Beat Naef‐Daenzer
Herbert Keil
Martin U. Grüebler
Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
Ecology and Evolution
carry‐over effects
food supplementation experiment
habitat degradation
habitat quality
life‐history trade‐off
parental care
title Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
title_full Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
title_fullStr Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
title_full_unstemmed Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
title_short Reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
title_sort reduced habitat quality increases intrinsic but not ecological costs of reproduction
topic carry‐over effects
food supplementation experiment
habitat degradation
habitat quality
life‐history trade‐off
parental care
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8859
work_keys_str_mv AT vanjatmichel reducedhabitatqualityincreasesintrinsicbutnotecologicalcostsofreproduction
AT matthiastschumi reducedhabitatqualityincreasesintrinsicbutnotecologicalcostsofreproduction
AT beatnaefdaenzer reducedhabitatqualityincreasesintrinsicbutnotecologicalcostsofreproduction
AT herbertkeil reducedhabitatqualityincreasesintrinsicbutnotecologicalcostsofreproduction
AT martinugruebler reducedhabitatqualityincreasesintrinsicbutnotecologicalcostsofreproduction