Ptilochronology proves unreliable in studies of nestling Pied Flycatchers

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.