Search

The availability and investment of energy among successive life‐history stages is a key feature of carryover effects. In migratory organisms, examining how both winter and spring experiences carryover to affect breeding activity is difficult due to the challenges in tracking individuals through these periods without impacting their behavior, thereby biasing results.Using common eiders Somateria mollissima, we examined whether spring conditions at an Arctic breeding colony (East Bay Island, Nunavut, Canada) can buffer the impacts of winter temperatures on body mass and breeding decisions in birds that winter at different locations (Nuuk and Disko Bay, Greenland, and Newfoundland, Canada; assessed by analyzing stable isotopes of 13‐carbon in winter‐grown claw samples). Specifically, we used path analysis to examine how wintering and spring environmental conditions interact to affect breeding propensity (a key reproductive decision influencing lifetime fitness in female eiders) within the contexts of the timing of colony arrival, pre‐breeding body mass (body condition), and a physiological proxy for foraging effort (baseline corticosterone).We demonstrate that warmer winter temperatures predicted lower body mass at arrival to the nesting colony, whereas warmer spring temperatures predicted earlier arrival dates and higher arrival body mass. Both higher body mass and earlier arrival dates of eider hens increased the probability that birds would initiate laying (i.e., higher breeding propensity). However, variation in baseline corticosterone was not linked to either winter or spring temperatures, and it had no additional downstream effects on breeding propensity.Overall, we demonstrate that favorable pre‐breeding conditions in Arctic‐breeding common eiders can compensate for the impact that unfavorable wintering conditions can have on breeding investment, perhaps due to greater access to foraging areas prior to laying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Functional Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In long‐distance migrants, preparation for migration is typically associated with increases in fat and body mass, and with an enlargement of pectoralis muscle mass that likely improves flight performance. Although changes in muscle mass or size have been well described in migratory birds, potential changes in muscle ultrastructure during this transition still deserves scrutiny. Using outdoor captive snow buntings (Plectrophenax nivalis n = 15) measured during their transition into a spring migratory phenotype as a model system, we studied changes in pectoralis muscle ultrastructure and predicted that muscle fiber diameter could increase in parallel with the gain in body mass. We also expected that larger fibers could either recruit satellite cells to support cellular maintenance and protein turnover, increase myonuclear domain (cytoplasm per nuclei) with a potential increase in protein turnover load per myonucleus, or existing myonuclei could undergo endoreduplication. Buntings increased body mass by 46% within a month, largely due to a > 6‐fold increase in body fat. However, this increase in body mass was also associated with a 36% increase in muscle fiber diameter. Both pectoralis muscle mass (r2 = 0.57–0.77) and fiber diameter (r2 = 0.32) correlated with total body mass, without any change in the number of nuclei per fiber. Consequently, variation in myonuclear domain (i.e. the amount of cytoplasm per nucleus), was also positively associated with body mass (r2 = 0.51). Therefore, buntings preparing for migration may experience an increase in muscle contraction force due to larger muscle fibers, but this is also coupled with increases in myonuclear domain, which may force these cells to increase protein production to safeguard satellite cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]