Consistent declines in wing lengths of Calidridine sandpipers suggest a rapid morphometric response to environmental change.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
03
11
2018
accepted:
04
03
2019
entrez:
4
4
2019
pubmed:
4
4
2019
medline:
1
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A recent study demonstrated that semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) wing lengths have shortened from the 1980s to the present-day. We examined alternative and untested hypotheses for this change at an important stopover site, James Bay, Ontario, Canada. We evaluated morphometric patterns in wing length and bill length by age and sex, when possible, and assessed if wing shape has also changed during this time-period. We investigated patterns of morphological change in two additional Calidridine sandpipers, white-rumped sandpipers (Calidris fuscicollis) and least sandpipers (Calidris minutilla), to determine if shorter wing lengths are a widespread pattern in small sandpipers. We also examined allometric changes in wing and bill lengths to clarify if wing length declines were consistent with historical scaling relationships and indicative of a change in body size instead of only wing length change. We found that including sex and wing shape in analyses revealed important patterns in morphometric change for semipalmated sandpipers. Wing lengths declined for both sexes, but the magnitude of decline was smaller and not significant for males. Additionally, semipalmated sandpiper wings have become more convex, a shape that increases maneuverability in flight. Wing lengths, but not bill lengths, declined for most species and age classes, a pattern that was inconsistent with historical allometric scaling relationships. For juvenile semipalmated sandpipers, however, both bill and wing lengths declined according to historical scaling relationships, which could be a consequence of nutritional stress during development or a shift in the proportion of birds from smaller-sized, western breeding populations. Except for juvenile semipalmated sandpipers, we did not find evidence for an increase in the proportion of birds from different breeding populations at the stopover site. Given the wide, hemispheric distribution of these sandpipers throughout their annual cycles, our results, paired with those from a previous study, provide evidence for wide-spread reduction in wing lengths of Calidridine sandpipers since the 1980s. The shorter wing lengths and more convex wing shapes found in this study support the hypothesis that selection has favored more maneuverable wing morphology in small sandpipers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30943247
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213930
pii: PONE-D-18-31747
pmc: PMC6447156
doi:
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.bb966qf']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0213930Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Jun;1046:228-41
pubmed: 16055856
Science. 2011 Aug 19;333(6045):1024-6
pubmed: 21852500
Curr Biol. 2013 Mar 18;23(6):R233-4
pubmed: 23518051
J Anim Ecol. 2018 May;87(3):647-659
pubmed: 29380382
Science. 1981 Oct 2;214(4516):82-5
pubmed: 17802577
Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Jun;26(6):285-91
pubmed: 21470708
J Exp Biol. 2010 Mar 15;213(6):862-9
pubmed: 20190111
J Evol Biol. 2015 Apr;28(4):791-9
pubmed: 25693863
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Jun;1046:282-93
pubmed: 16055861
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 09;8(9):e73990
pubmed: 24040139
J Evol Biol. 2012 Apr;25(4):634-46
pubmed: 22268991
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
Nature. 2006 May 4;441(7089):81-3
pubmed: 16672969
PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7):e6452
pubmed: 19649284
Oecologia. 2002 May;131(3):380-390
pubmed: 28547710
Oecologia. 1997 Feb;109(4):615-621
pubmed: 28307347
Biol Lett. 2012 Oct 23;8(5):882-6
pubmed: 22764114
Science. 2016 May 13;352(6287):819-21
pubmed: 27174985
Int J Plant Sci. 2000 Jan;161(1):127-132
pubmed: 10648202
Evolution. 2000 Aug;54(4):1404-13
pubmed: 11005306
J Anim Ecol. 2006 Sep;75(5):1182-9
pubmed: 16922854
Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011 Jan;65(1):47-55
pubmed: 21297852
Science. 1992 Nov 20;258(5086):1348-50
pubmed: 17778362
PLoS One. 2008 May 14;3(5):e2154
pubmed: 18478072
Science. 2010 Jan 15;327(5963):326-7
pubmed: 20075251
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;31(4):466-75
pubmed: 18306169
Science. 2002 Apr 26;296(5568):707-11
pubmed: 11976447
Anim Behav. 1997 Nov;54(5):1291-9
pubmed: 9398382
Ecol Evol. 2017 Apr 04;7(9):3243-3256
pubmed: 28480022
Mol Ecol. 2008 Jan;17(1):167-78
pubmed: 18173499
Nature. 2010 Jul 22;466(7305):482-5
pubmed: 20651690
J Evol Biol. 2017 Jun;30(6):1177-1184
pubmed: 28386940