Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Individual optimization of clutch size in great tits

Abstract

Individual birds within a population often lay clutches of very different sizes1,2, even though those laying the larger clutches tend to produce more young which survive to enter the subsequent breeding population (recruits)3. Two hypotheses have been proposed to account for such differences in clutch size4. The individual optimization hypothesis proposes that parents lay that size of clutch from which they can maximize recruitment: adding or taking away young from their nests will result in lowered recruitment5. The trade-off hypothesis assumes a cost of reproduction; the rearing of offspring leads to the parents having a lowered future survival or fecundity6,7. When given experimentally enlarged broods to rear parents should therefore show an increased mortality or reduced fecundity. We tested the predictions of these two hypotheses by manipulating the brood size of great tits Parus major over nine years, and following subsequent survival of offspring and parents and future breeding performance of parents. Parents differed in their ability to recruit offspring, this being reflected in the size of clutch that they laid. Parents did best, in terms of the number of offspring recruited, by rearing their own clutch size: adding or removing young did not increase recruitment rates. These results strongly support the individual optimization hypothesis. There was no evidence that parents raising enlarged broods suffered a higher mortality or decreased fecundity compared with those which raised their own natural or decreased broods. We are therefore unable to establish a cost of reproduction and consequently the predictions of the trade-off hypothesis are not supported.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lack, D. Population Studies of Birds (Oxford University Press, London, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Murphy, E. C. & Haukioja, E. in Current Ornithology Vol. 4 (ed. Johnston, R. F.) 141–180 (Plenum, New York, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boyce, M. S. & Perrins, C. M. Ecology 68, 142–153 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nur, N. in Perspectives in Ethology Vol. 7 (eds Bateson, P. P. G. & Klopfer, P. H.) 49–77 (Plenum, New York, 1987).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Perrins, C. M. & Moss, D. J. Ánim. Ecol. 44, 659–706 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Williams, G. C. Am. Nat. 100, 687–690 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Charnov, E. L. & Krebs, J. R. Ibis 116, 217–219 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lack, D. The Natural Regulation of Animal Populations (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Numerical Algorithms Group The GLIM System Release 3.77 Manual (Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd, Oxford, 1986).

  10. Perrins, C. M. J. Ánim. Ecol. 34, 601–647 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Perrins, C. M. British Tits (Collins, London, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hogstedt, G. Science 210, 1148–1150 (1980).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pettifor, R., Perrins, C. & McCleery, R. Individual optimization of clutch size in great tits. Nature 336, 160–162 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1038/336160a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/336160a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing