Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford University, 1992).
Roff, D. A., Mostowy, S. & Fairbairn, D. J. The evolution of trade-offs: Testing predictions on response to selection and environmental variation. Evolution (N. Y.). 56, 84–95 (2002).
Lack, D. The Significance of Clutch-size. Ibis (Lond. 1859). 89, 302–352 (1947).
Google Scholar
Drent, R. H. & Daan, S. The prudent parent: Energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Adrea 68, 225–263 (1980).
Harshman, L. G. & Zera, A. J. The cost of reproduction: The devil in the details. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 80–86 (2007).
Google Scholar
Dijkstra, C., Daan, S. & Tinbergen, J. M. Family planning in the Kestrel (Falco Tinnunculus): The ultimate control of covariation of laying date and clutch size. Behaviour 114, 83–116 (1990).
Google Scholar
Cox, R. M. et al. Experimental evidence for physiological costs underlying the trade-off between reproduction and survival. Funct. Ecol. 24, 1262–1269 (2010).
Google Scholar
Marshall, K. E. & Sinclair, B. J. Repeated stress exposure results in a survival-reproduction trade-off in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 963–969 (2010).
Google Scholar
Rivalan, P. et al. Trade-off between current reproductive effort and delay to next reproduction in the leatherback sea turtle. Oecologia 145, 564–574 (2005).
Google Scholar
Perrins, C. M. Population Fluctuations and Clutch-Size in the Great Tit, Parus major. J. Anim. Ecol. 34, 601 (1965).
Google Scholar
Walker, R. S., Gurven, M., Burger, O. & Hamilton, M. J. The trade-off between number and size of offspring in humans and other primates. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275, 827–833 (2008).
Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am. Nat. 100, 687–690 (1966).
Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. & Krebs, J. R. On clutch-size and fitness. Ibis (Lond. 1859). 116, 217–219 (1974).
Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. On the evolution of reproductive strategies in birds: Reproductive effort. Am. Nat. 111, 453–478 (1977).
Google Scholar
Martin, T. E. Food as a limit on breeding birds: A life-history perspective. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 435–487 (1987).
Google Scholar
Santangeli, A., Hakkarainen, H., Laaksonen, T. & Korpimäki, E. Home range size is determined by habitat composition but feeding rate by food availability in male Tengmalm’s owls. Anim. Behav. 83, 1115–1123 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kouba, M., Bartoš, L., Sindelář, J. & St’astny, K. Alloparental care and adoption in Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus). J. Ornithol. 158, 185–191 (2017).
Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M. Habitat fragmentation and the individual: Tawny owls Strix aluco in woodland patches. J. Anim. Ecol. 64, 652 (1995).
Google Scholar
Bruun, M. & Smith, H. G. Landscape composition affects habitat use and foraging flight distances in breeding European starlings. Biol. Conserv. 114, 179–187 (2003).
Google Scholar
Frey-Roos, F., Brodmann, P. A. & Reyer, H. U. Relationships between food resources, foraging patterns, and reproductive success in the water pipit, Anthus sp. Spinoletta. Behav. Ecol. 6, 287–295 (1995).
Google Scholar
Saïd, S. et al. What shapes intra-specific variation in home range size? A case study of female roe deer. Oikos 118, 1299–1306 (2009).
Google Scholar
Van Beest, F. M., Rivrud, I. M., Loe, L. E., Milner, J. M. & Mysterud, A. What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore?. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 771–785 (2011).
Google Scholar
Hakkarainen, H., Koivunen, V. & Korpimäki, E. Reproductive success and parental effort of Tengmalm’s owls: Effects of spatial and temporal variation in habitat quality. Ecoscience 4, 35–42 (1997).
Google Scholar
Kittle, A. M. et al. Wolves adapt territory size, not pack size to local habitat quality. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1177–1186 (2015).
Google Scholar
Trembley, I., Thomas, D., Blondel, J., Perret, P. & Lambrechts, M. M. The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican Blue Tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis (Lond. 1859). 147, 17–24 (2004).
Google Scholar
Turcotte, Y. & Desrochers, A. Landscape-dependent response to predation risk by forest birds. Oikos 100, 614–618 (2003).
Google Scholar
Hinsley, S. A., Rothery, P. & Bellamy, P. E. Influence of woodland area on breeding success in great tits parus major and blue tits Parus caeruleus. J. Avian Biol. 30, 271 (1999).
Google Scholar
Hinam, H. L. & Clair, C. C. S. High levels of habitat loss and fragmentation limit reproductive success by reducing home range size and provisioning rates of Northern saw-whet owls. Biol. Conserv. 141, 524–535 (2008).
Google Scholar
Daan, S., Deerenberg, C. & Dijkstra, C. Increased daily work precipitates natural death in the Kestrel. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 539 (1996).
Google Scholar
Slagsvold, T., Sandvik, J., Rofstad, G., Lorentsen, O. & Husby, M. On the adaptive value of intraclutch egg-size variation in birds. Auk 101, 685–697 (1984).
Google Scholar
Tripet, F., Richner, H. & Tripet, F. Host responses to ectoparasites: Food compensation by parent blue tits. Oikos 78, 557 (1997).
Google Scholar
Budden, A. E. & Beissinger, S. R. Resource allocation varies with parental sex and brood size in the asynchronously hatching green-rumped parrotlet (Forpus passerinus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 637–647 (2009).
Google Scholar
Bókony, V. et al. Stress response and the value of reproduction: Are birds prudent parents?. Am. Nat. 173, 589–598 (2009).
Google Scholar
McGinley, M. A., Temme, D. H. & Geber, M. A. Parental investment in offspring in variable environments: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Am. Nat. 130, 370–398 (1987).
Google Scholar
Ghalambor, C. K. & Martin, T. E. Fecundity-survival trade-offs and parental risk-taking in birds. Science (80-.). 292, 494–497 (2001).
Google Scholar
Caro, S. M., Griffin, A. S., Hinde, C. A. & West, S. A. Unpredictable environments lead to the evolution of parental neglect in birds. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar
Roulin, A. Barn Owls: Evolution and Ecology (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
Romano, A., Séchaud, R. & Roulin, A. Global biogeographical patterns in the diet of a cosmopolitan avian predator. J. Biogeogr. 47, 1467–1481 (2020).
Google Scholar
Arlettaz, R., Krähenbühl, M., Almasi, B., Roulin, A. & Schaub, M. Wildflower areas within revitalized agricultural matrices boost small mammal populations but not breeding Barn Owls. J. Ornithol. 151, 553–564 (2010).
Google Scholar
Hindmarch, S., Elliott, J. E., Mccann, S. & Levesque, P. Habitat use by barn owls across a rural to urban gradient and an assessment of stressors including, habitat loss, rodenticide exposure and road mortality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 164, 132–143 (2017).
Google Scholar
Castañeda, X. A., Huysman, A. E. & Johnson, M. D. Barn Owls select uncultivated habitats for hunting in a winegrape growing region of California. Ornithol. Appl. 123, 1–15 (2021).
Séchaud, R. et al. Behaviour-specific habitat selection patterns of breeding barn owls. Mov. Ecol. 9, 18 (2021).
Google Scholar
Roulin, A., Ducrest, A.-L. & Dijkstra, C. Effect of brood size manipulations on parents and offspring in the barn owl Tyto alba. Ardea 87, 91–100 (1999).
Béziers, P. & Roulin, A. Double brooding and offspring desertion in the barn owl Tyto alba. J. Avian Biol. 47, 235–244 (2016).
Google Scholar
Laaksonen, T., Hakkarainen, H. & Korpimäki, E. Lifetime reproduction of a forest-dwelling owl increases with age and area of forests. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 271, 10058 (2004).
Google Scholar
Bryant, D. M. Energy expenditure and body mass changes as measures of reproductive costs in birds. Funct. Ecol. 2, 23 (1988).
Google Scholar
Merilä, J. & Wiggins, D. A. Mass loss in breeding blue tits: The role of energetic stress. J. Anim. Ecol. 66, 452 (1997).
Google Scholar
Frey, C., Sonnay, C., Dreiss, A. & Roulin, A. Habitat, breeding performance, diet and individual age in Swiss Barn Owls (Tyto alba). J. Ornithol. 152, 279–290 (2010).
Google Scholar
Aschwanden, J., Holzgang, O. & Jenni, L. Importance of ecological compensation areas for small mammals in intensively farmed areas. Wildlife Biol. 13, 150–158 (2007).
Google Scholar
Roulin, A. Tyto alba Barn Owl. BWP Updat. 4, 115–138 (2002).
Calabrese, J. M., Fleming, C. H. & Gurarie, E. ctmm: An R package for analyzing animal relocation data as a continuous-time stochastic process. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1124–1132 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fleming, C. H. et al. Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: A new autocorrelated kernel density estimator. Ecology 96, 1182–1188 (2015).
Google Scholar
Dixon, P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 14, 927–930 (2003).
Google Scholar
Taylor, I. Barn Owls: Predator-Prey Relationships and Conservation (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
van den Brink, V., Dreiss, A. N. & Roulin, A. Melanin-based coloration predicts natal dispersal in the barn owl, Tyto alba. Anim. Behav. 84, 805–812 (2012).
Google Scholar
Dreiss, A. N. & Roulin, A. Divorce in the barn owl: Securing a compatible or better mate entails the cost of re-pairing with a less ornamented female mate. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 1114–1124 (2014).
Google Scholar
Garriga, J., Palmer, J. R. B., Oltra, A. & Bartumeus, F. Expectation-maximization binary clustering for behavioural annotation. PLoS One 11, e0151984 (2016).
Google Scholar
San-Jose, L. M. et al. Differential fitness effects of moonlight on plumage colour morphs in barn owls. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1331–1340 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bracis, C., Bildstein, K. L. & Mueller, T. Revisitation analysis uncovers spatio-temporal patterns in animal movement data. Ecography (Cop.) 41, 1801–1811 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lüdecke, D. Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science [R package sjPlot version 2.8.9]. (2021).
Rutz, C. & Bijlsma, R. G. Food-limitation in a generalist predator. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273, 2069–2076 (2006).
Google Scholar
Altmann, S. A. The impact of locomotor energetics on mammalian foraging. J. Zool. 211, 215–225 (1987).
Google Scholar
Evens, R. et al. Proximity of breeding and foraging areas affects foraging effort of a crepuscular, insectivorous bird. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–11 (2018).
Pfeiffer, T. & Meyburg, B. U. GPS tracking of Red Kites (Milvus milvus) reveals fledgling number is negatively correlated with home range size. J. Ornithol. 156, 963–975 (2015).
Google Scholar
Romano, A. et al. Nestling sex and plumage color predict food allocation by barn swallow parents. Behav. Ecol. 27, 1198–1205 (2016).
Google Scholar
Bryant, D. M. & Tatner, P. Hatching asynchrony, sibling competition and siblicide in nestling birds: Studies of swiftlets and bee-eaters. Anim. Behav. 39, 657–671 (1990).
Google Scholar
Mock, D. W. & Parker, G. A. Advantages and disadvantages of egret and heron brood reduction. Evolution (N. Y.). 40, 459–470 (1986).
Stenning, M. J. Hatching asynchrony, brood reduction and other rapidly reproducing hypotheses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 243–246 (1996).
Google Scholar
Roulin, A., Colliard, C., Russier, F., Fleury, M. & Grandjean, V. Sib-sib communication and the risk of prey theft in the barn owl Tyto alba. J. Avian Biol. 39, 593–598 (2008).
Google Scholar
Korpimaki, E. Costs of reproduction and success of manipulated broods under varying food conditions in Tengmalm’s owl. J. Anim. Ecol. 57, 1879 (1988).
Tolonen, P. & Korpimäki, E. Do kestrels adjust their parental effort to current or future benefit in a temporally varying environment?. Écoscience 3, 165–172 (1996).
Google Scholar
Harrison, F., Barta, Z., Cuthill, I. & Székely, T. How is sexual conflict over parental care resolved? A meta-analysis. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1800–1812 (2009).
Google Scholar
Osorno, J. L. & Székely, T. Sexual conflict and parental care in magnificent frigatebirds: Full compensation by deserted females. Anim. Behav. 68, 337–342 (2004).
Google Scholar
Paredes, R., Jones, I. L. & Boness, D. J. Parental roles of male and female thick-billed murres and razorbills at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Behaviour 143, 451–481 (2006).
Google Scholar
Kleijn, D. et al. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol. Lett. 9, 243–254 (2006).
Google Scholar
Zingg, S., Ritschard, E., Arlettaz, R. & Humbert, J. Y. Increasing the proportion and quality of land under agri-environment schemes promotes birds and butterflies at the landscape scale. Biol. Conserv. 231, 39–48 (2019).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
