Avian biology research 8(4) preview

AvianBiologyResearchPublished byScience Reviews 2000 Ltd

Volume 8 No.4 2015ISSN 1758 -1559

Abstract edition

Avian Biology ResearchVolume 8 No. 4 2015 ISSN 1758 - 1559

Front cover: Leiothrix lutea, its digestive physiology and health: see pages 221–226. Copyright: Kevin Bampton.

Follow our Twitter feeds: @AvianBiologyRes @sciencereviewsWWW.AVIANBIOLOGYRESEARCH.CO.UK

Contents – click on the titles to jump straight to the abstract

195 Replacement of yolk of the chicken embryo in ovo with fresh yolk or yolk varying in granule and cholesterol contentRichard E. Austic and Kun-Nan Hsu

210 Molecular analysis of the value of Horseshoe Crab eggs to migrating shorebirdsIvana Novcic, David S. Mizrahi, Richard R. Veit and William O.C. Symondson

221 Chitosan supplementation may improve the digestive physiology and health of captive Leiothrix luteaWang Le, Liao Ting-Ting, Wang Xi-Long, Yuan Gui-Ping and Yuan Shi-Bin

227 Importanceofinherentsuitability,behaviouralflexibilityandcompetitivenessinoccupancyofurban parks by an endemic honeyeaterAlan Lill and Ingrid Muscat

237 Modelling eggshell maculationThomas W. Pike

244 Food supplementation reveals constraints and adaptability of egg quality in the magpie Pica picaHeli Siitari, Rauno Alatalo, Marjo Pihlaja, Jenny Hämäläinen, Jonathan D. Blount, Ton G. Groothuis, Vesa P. Hytönen, Peter Surai and Carl D. Soulsbury

Free sections – available online

254 Avian News

http://stl.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/abr/2015/00000008/00000004/art00007

260 Conference Report BOU Annual Conference 2015: Avian Tracking and Remote Sensing

Bethany Clark


262 Avian Conference Diary


https://twitter.com/AvianBiologyRes

https://twitter.com/sciencereviews

http://WWW.AVIANBIOLOGYRESEARCH.CO.UK




Link to full article:


AVIAN BIOLOGY RESEARCH 8 (4), 2015 195–209

Replacement of yolk of the chicken embryo in ovo with fresh

yolk or yolk varying in granule and cholesterol content

Richard E. Austica* and Kun-Nan Hsua,b

Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University,

Ithaca, New York 14853, USAbPresent address: 30 Walden Lane, Groton, NY 13073 (Home); Fong Sheng Poultry Farm, No.

61‑11, Min Sheng Rd., Pingtung City, Taiwan 900 (Business), P.R. China

*E‑mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

A method has been devised to study the nutritional role of yolk cholesterol in the development of the chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) embryo using egg yolk replacement. Preliminary experiments revealed that 11 mL of yolk in medium-sized eggs were adequate to support embryos from 4 to 20 days of incubation, and that low levels of β‑cyclodextrin (β‑CD) and amyloglucosidase (AG) in yolk were tolerated by the embryo. Fresh egg yolk was treated with β‑CD at 50 °C, centrifuged to remove the insoluble β‑CD-cholesterol complex, and incubated with AG to degrade residual β‑CD. The cholesterol content was reduced from 13.1 mg g–1 in fresh egg yolk to 1.3 mg g–1 in cholesterol-reduced yolk supernatant (CRYS). Yolk granules co-precipitated with the β‑CD-cholesterol complex. The cholesterol concentration of CRYS supplemented with granules from fresh yolk (i.e. CRYSg) was 3.2 mg g–1. When yolks of early 5-day embryos were replaced with 11 mL of CRYS, the maximum survival was 17 days of incubation. When yolks were replaced with 11 mL CRYSg, 30% of embryos survived to 20 days, a significant increase in survival compared to CRYS (P < 0.05). Sixty per cent of embryos receiving fresh yolk (yolk controls) and 83% of embryos in intact eggs (intact controls) survived to 20 days. The controls did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Embryos in the CRYS and CRYSg groups had shorter survivals than yolk controls (P < 0.001) and intact controls (P < 0.005). These results suggest a methodological approach for investigations of egg yolk cholesterol and yolk granules in chick embryo development.

Keywords: chicken embryo, egg yolk replacement, cholesterol-reduced yolk, β‑cyclodextrin, yolk granules

654

987

121110

31 2


mailto:[email protected]




Molecular analysis of the value of Horseshoe Crab eggs to

migrating shorebirds

Ivana Novcica*, David S. Mizrahib, Richard R. Veita,c and

William O.C. Symondsond

aBiology Department, Doctoral Subprogram in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, The

Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY 10016, USAbNew Jersey Audubon Society, Cape May Bird Observatory, Cape May Court House, NJ 08210,

USAcBiology Department, College of Staten Island, CUNY, Staten Island, NY 10314, USAdCardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AX, UK


ABSTRACT

Detection of prey DNA from faecal samples is a non-invasive method being successfully applied to the dietary analysis of birds as well as other vertebrates and invertebrates. We have employed this technique to examine the significance of Horseshoe Crab eggs (Limulus polyphemus) for Dunlins (Calidris alpina), Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla), Least Sandpipers (Calidris minutilla) and Short-billed Dowitchers (Limnodromus griseus) during northbound migration at their major stopover area in Delaware Bay. This was accomplished through polymerase chain reaction amplification of Limulus DNA from faecal samples using new Horseshoe Crab-specific primers. We detected the consumption of crab eggs in all study species, although results suggest that eggs may be a less important food source for Least Sandpipers than for the other species. Consumption of eggs increases as the migration season progresses, implying a strong preference of birds for this resource at the end of May, when eggs are readily accessible. The results confirm the value of Horseshoe Crab eggs for migrating shorebirds in this crucial stopover area. The Limulus-specific primers we designed can be effectively used for detection of semidigested Limulus DNA from faecal samples and thus they can be employed in the dietary analysis of other predators that seasonally capitalise on Horseshoe Crabs or their eggs.

Keywords: Shorebirds, diet, Horseshoe Crabs, species-specific polymerase chain reaction, Delaware Bay

Figure 1 Number of birds tested positive to Limulus polyphemus DNA.



Chitosan supplementation may improve the digestive physiology

and health of captive Leiothrix lutea

Wang Lea, Liao Ting-Tinga, Wang Xi-Longa, Yuan Gui-Pingb and Yuan Shi-Bina*

aKey Laboratory of Southwest China Wildlife Resources Conservation (Ministry of Education),

College of Life Science, China West Normal University, 1 Shida Road, Nanchong, Sichuan

637002, P.R. ChinabAnalytical and Testing Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610064, P.R. China


ABSTRACT

We investigated the effects of supplemental chitosan on digestibility of feed nutrients, intestinal histology and digestive enzyme activity in the pancreas, duodenum and jejunoileum in Leiothrix lutea. Sixty-four adult birds were randomly allotted to one of four dietary treatments (basal diet supplemented with 0%, 0.1%, 0.5% and 1% chitosan). The experiment lasted for 30 days, of which the last 4 days involved metabolic experiments. Compared with the control group, the addition of 0.5% chitosan enhanced the apparent metabolism rate of dry matter, metabolisable energy, crude fat and phosphorus, and decreased apparent metabolism rate of calcium; crude protein was unaffected. Compared with the control group, the villous height of the duodenum and ileum supplemented with 0.5% chitosan increased by 12.11% and 15.03%, while the crypt depth in the duodenum deepened by 6.48%. Supplemental chitosan decreased lipase and amylase activities; trypsin and chymotrypsin activities increased first and then decreased as the level of chitosan increased. These data suggest that dietary chitosan (0.5%) may improve the digestive physiology of L. lutea in captivity by increasing the apparent metabolic rate of most nutrients, improving intestinal health and enhancing digestive enzyme activity.

Keywords: chitosan, Leiothrix lutea, nutrient metabolism, intestinal histology, digestive enzymes



Table 1 The composition and nutritional level of the basal diet

Dietary component

Percentage (%)

Nutrient levelPercentage

(%)

Corn 30 ME (MJ kg–1) 12.06Soybean 7 Crude protein (%) 20.02Rice 12.8 Ca (%) 0.81Soybean meal 22 P (%) 0.59Wheat bran 4 Lysine (%) 1.11Flour 12 Methionine (%) 0.45Rice bran 4Fish meal 6Methionine 0.1CaCO3 1.3Salt 0.21% premixa 0.6Total 100

a1% premix provided per kilogram of complete feed: 12 mg retinol, 2.5 mg pyridoxine, 0.02 mg cholecalciferol, 20 mg tocopherol, 50 mg nicotinic acid, 2 mg menadione, 12 mg pantothenic acid, 12 ug cyanocobalamin, 6 mg riboflavin, 0.30 mg biotin, 1.10 mg folic acid, 1500 mg choline, 100 mg Fe, 25 mg Zn, 6 mg Cu, 90 mg Mn, 0.2 mg Se, 0.3 mg I, 0.05 mg Mg.



Importance of inherent suitability, behavioural flexibility and

competitiveness in occupancy of urban parks by an endemic

honeyeater

Alan Lilla and Ingrid Muscatb

aDepartment of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University,

Victoria 3086, AustraliabSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University Clayton Campus, Victoria 3800, Australia


ABSTRACT

Three factors potentially facilitating avian urban colonisation are: (a) inherent suitability for city environments, (b) limited resource overlap with residents, achieved through resource partitioning or outcompeting residents for shared resources, and (c) behavioural flexibility permitting innovative resource exploitation. We examined the foraging ecology and nest site choice of the Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) in urban parks in Melbourne, Australia to elucidate which of these three factors was likely to be instrumental in facilitating occupancy of this urban habitat by this native honeyeater. The Noisy Miner was relatively unspecialised in its nest site choice in parks, suggesting that the many suburban parks with branching eucalypts probably provide lots of suitable nest sites for this species. Park-dwelling Noisy Miners appeared to be superior competitors for food to most cohabiting bird species. They were never targets of interspecific aggression, but quite often initiated it against 16 other bird species. Most interactions were attacks and/or chases and 74% displaced the target species’ member. In Melbourne’s parks, Noisy Miners foraged for invertebrates mainly: (a) in the sub-canopy on foliage, using hanging and reaching behaviours, and (b) on the ground on bark litter and grass, gleaning in a standing posture. Several cohabiting bird species also gleaned invertebrates on the ground in a similar manner, but all also commonly used other behaviours when foraging on this substrate. No cohabiting species that foraged extensively in the sub-canopy fed substantially on invertebrates there. Thus Noisy Miners could successfully inhabit Melbourne’s parks apparently at least partly because: (i) nest site choice was relatively unspecialised; (ii) they flexibly exploited food resources at ground level, unlike exurban conspecifics; (iii) they aggressively dominated possible heterospecific food competitors at ground level; and (iv) they probably experienced fairly limited dietary overlap with cohabiting bird species.

Keywords: Noisy Miner, urban parks, ‘pre-adaptation’, behavioural flexibility, interference competition, innovation, nest site



Figure 1 Percentage of total observed interspecific agonistic interactions involving urban Noisy Miners that was with each of 16 other bird species. Species key (with total lengths in cm from Pizzey and Knight, 2012): ER, Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius (29–34); LR, Little Raven Corvus mellori (48–50); ML, Magpie–lark Grallina cyanoleuca (26–30); AM Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen (38–44); WFH, White–faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae (66–70); LK, Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae (41–47); G, Galah Eolophus roseicapillus (34–38); CS, Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris (21); CM, Common Myna Sturnus tristis (23–25); CR, Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans (30–37); RW, Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata (33–36); ML, Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna (20–23); RL, Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus (25–32); CB, Common Blackbird Turdus merula (25–26); GB Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus (24–30); SCC, Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita (44–51).



Modelling eggshell maculation

Thomas W. Pike*

School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7DL, UK


ABSTRACT

The eggshells of many avian species are characterised by distinctive patterns of maculation, consisting of speckles, spots, blotches or streaks, the spatial-statistical properties of which vary considerably between (and often within) species. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the production of eggshell maculation would enable us to explore the costs and constraints on the evolution of maculation patterns, but as yet this area is surprisingly understudied. Here I present a simple model of eggshell maculation, which is based on the known biology of pigment deposition, and which can produce a range of realistic maculation patterns. In particular, it provides an explanation for previous observations of maculation heterogeneity and diversity, and allows testable predictions to be made regarding maculation patterns, including a possible signalling role.

Keywords: random field, pigmentation, protoporphyrin, shell-gland membrane





Food supplementation reveals constraints and adaptability of

egg quality in the magpie Pica pica

Heli Siitaria, Rauno Alataloa†, Marjo Pihlajaa, Jenny Hämäläinena, Jonathan D.

Blountb, Ton G. Groothuisc, Vesa P. Hytönend,g, Peter Suraie and

Carl D. Soulsburya,f*

aDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, Evolutionary Research, University of

Jyväskylä, FinlandbCentre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of

Exeter, UKcBehavioural Biology, Groningen Institute of Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen,

The NetherlandsdDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, Molecular Recognition, University of

Jyväskylä, FinlandeDepartment of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Szent Istvan

University, HungaryfSchool of Life Sciences, Joseph Banks Laboratories, University of Lincoln, UKgBioMediTech, University of Tampere and Fimlab Laboratories, Finland

†Deceased 9 November 2012


ABSTRACT

Differences in the deposition of limited maternal resources to eggs can reflect the optimal allocation to manipulate offspring phenotype, or constraints caused by maternal condition. We examined multiple maternal substances transferred to eggs in the magpie Pica pica to test the hypothesis that certain substances represent constraint and some optimal allocation. We did this by supplementary feeding magpies prior to egg-laying and then comparing the effect of food on maternal substances in conjunction with laying order relative to a control group. Certain substances such as carotenoids, immunoglobulins and avidin responded positively to food supplementation, whereas others, such as testosterone and total protein content of eggs, did not. Immunoglobulin allocation increased with laying order in fed but not in unfed groups. Our results suggest that patterns of optimal allocation and constraint in maternally-provisioned substances co-occur within clutches. Furthermore, constraint and optimal allocation may co-occur within the same substance i.e. immunoglobulins, highlighting the complexities of maternal resource allocation.

Keywords: maternal effects, hatching asynchrony, carotenoids, testosterone, immunoglobulins



Figure 1 Levels of testosterone (pg mg–1 of yolk) in (a) first and last hatched eggs and (b) in relation to clutch size.


Editorial Advisory BoardRoselina Angel Animal & Avian Building (ANSC) 1413 AnSc/AgEn building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-2311, USA

Murray R. Bakst Germplasm and Gamete Physiology Laboratory, USDA/ARS/LPSI, Bldg. 262, BARC-East, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA

Wayne L. Bryden Department of Animal Science University of Queensland Gatton Qld 4343, Australia

Jonathan Cooper Department of Biological Sciences University of Lincoln Riseholme Park Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK

Rob Etches Crystal BioscienceSan FranciscoCA, USA

Barry O. Hughes Department of Ethology Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics, Edinburgh Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK

Susumu Ishii Department of Biology Waseda University, Tokyo 169-50 Japan

Susan J. Lamont Department of Animal Science Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50011, USA

Alan Lill Department of Ecology,Environment and Evolution,School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University,Bundoora, Melbourne,Victoria 3083, Australia

F.M.A. McNabb Department of Biology Virginia Polytechnic and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA

Ruedi Nager Division of Environmental & Evolutionary Biology Ornithology Group Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences University of Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Mary Ann Ottinger Department of Poultry Science, Animal Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park,Maryland 20742, USA

Barnett Rattner USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 12011 Beech Forest Drive Laurel, Maryland 20708, USA

Colin G. Scanes University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Chapman Hall, 2310 E. Hartford Avenue WI 53211-3165, USA

Bengt Silverin Department of Zoology University of Gothenburg Box 463, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden

Anna Wilkinson Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK

John C. Wingfield Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior University of California Davis, California 95616,USA

ObjectivesAvian Biology Research provides a forum for people working in every field of ornithology, and submissions are considered that provide novel perspectives on any aspect of ornithology be it pure or applied. Most topics of research are considered, particularly if they are able to appeal to a broad readership. The editors encourage submissions that describe novel, hypothesis-driven research. However, review and methods-based papers will be also considered. We wish to appeal to the widest readership and so discourage manuscripts that are highly specialised in their topic or very geographically localised in their scientific application. For more information see http://www.sciencereviews2000.co.uk/view/journal/avian-biology-research

AVIAN BIOLOGY RESEARCHEditor-in-Chief Charles Deeming School of Life Sciences, College of Science, University of Lincoln, Lincolnshire LN6 7TS, UK

Editors Tom Pike School of Life Sciences, College of Science, University of Lincoln, Lincolnshire LN6 7TS, UK

Dale Sandercock Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, West Mains Rd, Edinburgh EH9 3KG, UK

Claudia WascherUniversity of Valladolid, Spain

Managing DirectorCatherine Henchek

Production ManagerSara Nash

Publishing ManagerChristine Evans

Production and Business CoordinatorSteve Wawman

Editorial AssistantClaire Pike

Science Reviews 2000 Ltd, PO Box 7712, Rushden NN10 1BJ, UKwww.avianbiologyresearch.co.uk Twitter: @AvianBiologyRes E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.sciencereviews2000.co.uk/view/journal/avian-biology-research

mailto:abr%40sciencereviews.co.uk?subject=

Documents

Avian biology research 8(4) preview