Ptilochronology proves unreliable in studies of nestling Pied Flycatchers

Kern, Michael D. and Cowie, Richard J. 2002. Ptilochronology proves unreliable in studies of nestling Pied Flycatchers. Ibis 144 (1) , pp. 23-29. 10.1046/j.0019-1019.2001.00010.x

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Ptilochronology does not appear to be a reliable measure of the daily growth rate of contour feathers or the nutritional state of nestling Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Growth bars on primary remiges, which according to ptilochronology represent a day’s increment of feather growth, are only about half as wide as the actual daily increase in the length of these feathers while they are growing. The average width of the growth bars on primaries was also uncorrelated with other commonly used measures of growth or nutritional status (increase in body mass or in the size of the wing or tarsus), although these were highly correlated with each other. In adult flycatchers, the average width of the growth bars on tertials was unrelated to the average bar width on greater coverts, although both feathers are replaced during the winter (prenuptial) moult. This suggests that the growth bars either do not reflect the nutritional status of adults during normal periods of moult or that contour feathers in different tracts vary in their sensitivity to the nutritional status of the moulting bird. To our knowledge, this is the first time that anyone has attempted to apply ptilochronology to nestlings. It is noteworthy that a method of measuring growth and nutritional state that has shown promise when applied to induced feathers of adult birds seems to be unreliable when applied to the developing plumage of nestlings, and perhaps the normal (not-induced) replacement plumage of adults.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Biosciences
Subjects:	Q Science > QH Natural history > QH301 Biology
Publisher:	Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:	0019-1019
Last Modified:	06 Jul 2023 02:29
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/65620

Citation Data

Cited 16 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item