Sharp Differences in the Timing of Male and Female Spring Arrival in the European Stonechat, Saxicola Rubicola, and the Whinchat, S. Rubetra (Passeriformes, Muscicapidae), in North-Eastern Ukraine

Open access

Abstract

Protandry, or the arrival of males prior to females to the breeding grounds is a widespread phenomenon in migratory birds though rarely examined in related species in which its manifestation can vary. European Stonechat and Whinchat are such a pair studied with use of individual marking in North-Eastern Ukraine in 1993–2008. An apparent protandry was found in Whinchat but not in European Stonechat. The difference between the arrival dates of male and female Whinchats (6 days) was significant. The mean time span between territory establishment by a male and subsequent pair formation was 10.6 days. By contrast, 38% of the first records of European Stonechats in spring were those of already paired birds and the difference between arrival dates of both sexes was non-significant. The proximate cause of protandry in Whinchat and its’ absence in European Stonechat seems to be the differences (or the lack thereof) in the onset of spring migration. The time lapse between the start of migration of male and female Whinchats originates at African wintering grounds and is maintained en route. The absence of the protandry in European Stonechat is probably a relict behaviour from the residency. The protandry in migratory populations of this species is yet to be developed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Banik M. 2006. Brood division: One more difference between Whinchat and Common Stonechat. Journal of Ornithology147 (5) 131–132.

  • Berthold P. 2001. Bird Migration. A general survey. 2nd ed. Oxford university press Oxford 1–272.

  • Blackburn E. Creswell W. 2015. Fine-scale habitat use during the non-breeding season suggests that winter habitat does not limit breeding populations of a declining long-distance Palearctic migrant. Journal of Avian Biology46 (6) 622–633.

  • Borowske A. C. 2015. Effects of life history strategies on annual events and processes in the lives of tidal Marsh Sparrows. Doct. Diss. Paper 877. University of Connecticut 1–203.

  • Canal D. Jovani R. Potti J. 2012. Multiple mating opportunities boost protandry in a pied fl ycatcher population. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology66 (1) 67–76.

  • Christidis L. et al. 2018. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World version 4.1 (Downloadable checklist). (https://www.howardandmoore.org).

  • Coppack T. Tøttrup A. P. Spottiswoode C. 2006. Degree of protandry reflects level of extrapair paternity in migratory songbirds. Journal of Ornithology147 (2) 260–265.

  • Coppack T. Pulido F. 2009. Proximate control and adaptive potential of protandrous migration in birds. Integrative and Comparative Biology49 (5) 493–506.

  • Currie D. Thompson D. B. A. Burke T. 2000. Patterns of territory settlement and consequences for breeding success in the Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe. Ibis142 (3) 389–398.

  • Davies N. B. 1976. Food flocking and territorial behaviour of the Pied Wagtail (Motacilla alba yarrellii Gould) in winter. Journal of Animal Ecology45 (1) P. 235–253.

  • Delgado F. P. Coppack T. 2010. The mechanisms underlying protandrous migration in birds. In: 25th International Ornithological Congress. Abstracts. Campos do Jordao SP Brasil 213.

  • Gwinner E. Rödl T. Schwabl H. 1994. Pair territoriality of wintering stonechats: behaviour function and hormones. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology34 (5) 321–327.

  • Harnos A. Nóra Á. Kovács Sz. Lang Zs. Csörgő T. 2015. Increasing protandry in the spring migration of the Pied Flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) in Central Europe. Journal of Ornithology156 (2) 543–546.

  • Helm B. Fiedler W. Callion J. 2006. Movements of European Stonechats Saxicola torquata according to ringing recoveries. Ardea94 (1) 33–44.

  • Higuchi H. Hirano T. 1983. Comparative ecology of White and Japanese Wagtails Motacilla alba and M. grandis in winter. Tori32: 1–11.

  • Johnson E. D. H. 1961. The pair relationship and polygyny in the Stonechat. British Birds54 (6) 213–225.

  • Johnson E. D. H. 1971. Observations on a resident population of Stonechats in Jersey. British Birds64 (5) 201–213.

  • Kokko H. Gunnarsson T. G. Morrell L. J. Gill J. A. 2006. Why do female migratory birds arrive later than males? Journal of Animal Ecology75 (6) 1293–1303.

  • Kostin Yu. V. 1983. Birds of Crimea. Nauka Moscow 1–249 [In Russian].

  • Lehikoinen A. Santaharju J. Møller A. P. 2017. Sex-specific timing of autumn migration in birds: the role of sexual size dimorphism migration distance and differences in breeding investment. Ornis Fennica94 (2) 53–65.

  • Leisler B. 1990. Selection and use of habitat of wintering migrants. In: Gwinner E. ed. Bird Migration. Physiology and Ecophysiology. Springer Verlag Berlin–Heidelberg 156–174.

  • Lerche-Jørgensen M. 2017. Songbirds on the move. Investigating migratory patterns winter ecology and conservation of sub-Saharan migrants. Ph.D. thesis. University of Copenhagen Copenhagen 1–134.

  • Maggini I. Bairlein F. 2012. Innate sex differences in the timing of spring migration in a songbird. PLoS One7 (2) e31271.

  • Matthysen E. 1993. Nonbreeding social organization in migratory and resident birds. In: Power D. M. ed. Current Ornithology. Vol. 11. Plenum press New York 93–141.

  • Moreau R. E. Moreau W. M. 1928. XV. Some notes on the habits of Palearctic migrants while in Egypt. Ibis70 (2) 233–252.

  • Morbey Y. E. Ydenberg R. C. 2001. Protandrous arrival timing to breeding areas: a review // Ecology Letters4 (6) 663–673.

  • Newton I. 2008. The Migration Ecology of Birds. Academic Press London 1–984.

  • Pärt T. 2001. The effects of territory quality on age-dependent reproductive performance in the northern wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe. Animal Behaviour62 (2). 379–388.

  • Petersen B. 1947. Die geographische Variation einiger Fennoskandischer Lepidopteren. Zoologiska bidrag från Uppsala26 329–531.

  • Phillips J. S. Greig-Smith P. 1980. Breeding and wintering sites of Stonechats. Bird Study27 (4) 255–256.

  • Risely A. Blackburn E. Cresswell W. 2015. Patterns in departure phenology and mass gain on African non-breeding territories prior to the Sahara crossing in a long-distance migrant. Ibis157 (4) 808–822.

  • Rödl T. 1994. The wintering of territorial Stonechat pairs (Saxicola torquata) in Israel. Journal of Ornithology136 (4) 423–433.

  • Rubolini D. Spina F. Saino N. 2004. Protandry and sexual dimorphism in trans-Saharan migratory birds. Behavioral Ecology15 (4) 592–601.

  • Schmaljohann H. Meier C. Arlt D. et al. 2015. Proximate causes of avian protandry differ between subspecies with contrasting migration challenges. Behavioral Ecology27 (1) 321–331.

  • Spina F. Massi A. Montemaggiori A. 1994. Back from Africa: who’s running ahead? Aspects of differential migration of sex and age classes in Palearctic-African spring migrants. Ostrich65 (2) 137–150.

  • Taylor J. A. 2015. Determinants of variation in productivity adult survival and recruitment in a declining migrant bird: the Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra). Ph.D. thesis. Lancaster University Lancaster 1–300.

  • Tøttrup A. P. Thorup K. 2008. Sex-differentiated migration patterns protandry and phenology in North European songbird populations. Journal of Ornithology149 (2) 161–167.

  • Urquhart E. 2002. Stonechats. A Guide to the Genus Saxicola. Christopher Helm London 1–320.

  • Wiklund C. Fagerström T. 1977. Why do males emerge before females? A hypothesis to explain the incidence of protandry in butterfl ies. Oecologia31 (2) 153–158.

  • Zahavi A. 1971. The social behaviour of the White Wagtail Motacilla alba alba wintering in Israel. Ibis113 (2) 203–211.

  • Zink R. M. Pavlova A. Drovetski S. Wink M. Rohwer S. 2009. Taxonomic status and evolutionary history of the Saxicola torquata complex. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution52 (3) 769–773.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


Cite Score 2018: 0.41

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.324
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.422

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 40 40 40
PDF Downloads 35 35 35