EVOLUTION OF CLUTCH SIZE IN THE EASTERN KINGBIRD: TESTS OF ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

Abstract

David Lack proposed that parental feeding ability ultimately limited clutch size in bird species in which the young were dependent upon their parents for food. However, many species can raise broods that are larger than their normal clutch size. Based on nine years of experimental results from an individually marked population of Eastern Kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus) breeding in central New York (USA), I test six hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for why birds fail to lay larger, seemingly more productive clutch sizes. I modified brood sizes by adding or removing 1–2 nestlings when broods were 1–3 d old and then documented the effects of brood size and manipulated brood size on nestling size and survivorship, offspring recruitment, adult survival, and future adult reproduction. Most first clutches of the season held three eggs (62% of 503 clutches), but the proportion of young to fledge did not vary with brood size (1–5 young), and as a result, broods of five were the most productive. Lack's basic food-limitation model was thus rejected. Although nestling mass and ninth-primary length at fledging declined with brood size, offspring survival during the immediate 10–12 d period after fledging was unrelated to nestling mass or lengths of the tarsus or ninth primary. The findings that the underweight young in broods of four and five did not suffer disproportionate mortality and that they were just as likely to appear as recruits in future years led to a rejection of the extended version of Lack's food-limitation model. Comparisons of annual variation in the relationship between productivity and brood size showed that productivity increased with brood size in eight of nine years (significant in six years). Thus, high temporal stochastic variation in conditions for rearing young (the “bad-years” hypothesis) is unlikely to explain the relatively small clutch size of kingbirds. Predictions of two other hypotheses that predict asymmetrically low survivorship of young in large broods (the “cliff-edge” and “brood-parasitism” hypotheses) were also rejected. On the other hand, evidence suggested that females individualize clutch size such that each female lays a clutch that matches her individual feeding ability. Although fledgling production was not adversely affected by experimental increases in brood size, most enlarged broods lost young during the 10–12 d immediately after fledging. Thus, enlarged broods ultimately produced no more independent young than did control broods that began with the same number of eggs. Fledgling deaths were not related to nestling mass or size, and recruitment was independent of manipulations. Survival and fecundity costs of reproduction also existed for females. Male survival (68%) was independent of the number of young that had been raised (0–5 young), and future breeding efforts were not compromised by elevated effort in the past year. However, females that raised broods of five were less likely to return to breed in the following year (42%) than were females that raised 2–4 young (62%). Among the survivors, females that raised enlarged broods in the preceding year also experienced more hatching failure and fledged fewer young than females that raised reduced broods in the preceding year. I suggest that costs of reproduction probably set the ultimate limit to clutch size in Eastern Kingbirds. I did not test the hypothesis that high rates of nest predation favor the evolution of small clutch size, but given that predators destroyed ∼50% of nests each year, it is also likely that nest predation has contributed to the evolution of the current clutch size of kingbirds. Whether a female produces a clutch of three or four eggs is probably determined by individual differences in parental ability, which may be related to either intrinsic properties of the female or territory quality.