What are the consequences of being a downy oak (quercus pubescens) or a holm oak (Q. ilex) for breeding blue tits (Parus caeruleus)?

By comparison with deciduous oaks, the lower yearly production of new leaves in sclerophyllous oaks is hypothesized to have several consequences on animal communities. In particular, the production of arthropod communities that feed upon the leaves should be lower in sclerophyllous than in deciduous oaks, this causing changes in breeding patterns and the demographic balance in insectivorous birds. Studies in both deciduous and sclerophyllous habitats in southern France have shown that: 1) the spring development of new leaves occurs later and more slowly in sclerophyllous than in deciduous oaks, 2) the biomass of caterpillars is much lower in sclerophyllous oak forests, and 3) there is a large variation in life history traits of the Blue Tit depending in which type of habitat they breed. Laying date occurs later and clutch size is lower in sclerophyllous habitats than in deciduous habitats. The evolution of life history traits is discussed according to whether poor sclerophyllous habitats are isolated (e.g. on Corsica) or are parts of landscapes including both habitat types.

[1]  P. Lebreton.  Tanins ou alcaloïdes : deux tactiques phytochimiques de dissuasion des herbivores , 1982, Revue d'Écologie (La Terre et La Vie).

[2]  Dr. Eric B. Edney.  Water Balance in Land Arthropods , 1977, Zoophysiology and Ecology.

[3]  R. Pradel,et al.  Is Adult Survival of the Blue Tit Higher in a Low Fecundity Insular Population than in a High Fecundity Mainland One , 1990 .

[4]  J. V. Balen,et al.  A Comparative Sudy of the Breeding Ecology of the Great Tit Parus major in Different Habitats , 2015 .

[5]  A. Dervieux,et al.  Feeding ecology and life history variation of the blue tit in Mediterranean deciduous and sclerophyllous habitats , 1991, Oecologia.

[6]  C. Monk.  AN ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EVERGREENNESS , 1966 .

[7]  A. J. Noordwijk,et al.  Quantitative ecological genetics of Great Tits , 1987 .

[8]  Martin L. Cody,et al.  Habitat Selection in Birds: The Roles of Vegetation Structure, Competitors, and Productivity , 1981 .

[9]  T. E. Martin.  Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective , 1987 .

[10]  I. Newton,et al.  The Role of Food in Limiting Bird Numbers , 2015 .

[11]  D. Owen.  Latitudinal gradients in clutch size: an extension of David Lack’s theory , 1977 .

[12]  L. Tinbergen.  The natural control of insects in pinewoods. I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds , 1960 .

[13]  Christopher M. Perrins,et al.  Population fluctuations and clutch size in the Great tit , 1965 .

[14]  P. Feeny.  Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores , 1975, Coevolution of Animals and Plants.

[15]  R. Drent,et al.  The Prudent Parent: Energetic Adjustments in Avian Breeding 1) , 1980 .

[16]  J. Blondel,et al.  On the genetical basis of the laying‐date in an island population of blue tits , 1990 .

[17]  John L. Harper,et al.  Population Biology of Plants. , 1978 .

[18]  S. A. Barnett,et al.  The natural regulation of animal numbers , 1955 .

[19]  L. Nef.  Écologie des Insectes Forestiers. Roger Dajoz , 1981 .

[20]  T. Royama.  Factors Governing the Hunting Behaviour and Selection of Food by the Great Tit (Parus major L.) , 1970 .

[21]  A. Strijkstra,et al.  Two Mediterranean Blue Tit Populations: Are Differences in the Timing of Breeding Associated with Caterpillar Availability? , 1990 .