Study

The effects of diet quality and quantity on plumage colour and growth of great tit Parus major nestlings: a food manipulation experiment along a pollution gradient

  • Published source details Eeva T., Sillanpaa S. & Salminen J.P. (2009) The effects of diet quality and quantity on plumage colour and growth of great tit Parus major nestlings: a food manipulation experiment along a pollution gradient. Journal of Avian Biology (formerly Ornis Scandinavica 1970-1993), 40, 491-499.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase reproductive success

Action Link
Bird Conservation
  1. Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase reproductive success

    A replicated and controlled study in open pine Pinus sylvestris forests in southwest Finland in 2005 (Eeva et al. 2009) provided 87 great tit Parus major nestlings with three supplementary diets: autumnal moth Epirrita autumnata larvae (high in carotenoids – chemicals needed for coloured feathers) and mealworms (diet 1); mealworms and water-dispersed lutein (an important carotenoid, diet 2); mealworms and distilled water (diet 3). Nestlings fed on diets 1 and 2 were larger and heavier than control (unfed) nestlings and nestlings fed on diet 3, but only in areas with high levels of  heavy metal pollution (polluted areas: average wing length of approximately 46 mm and body mass of 16.5 g for diet 1 nestlings vs. 46 mm and 15.8 g for diet 2 vs. 44 mm and 15.0 g for diet 3 and 43 mm and 15.0 g for controls; unpolluted areas: 48 mm and 16.5 g for diet 1 vs. 46 mm and 16 g for diet 2 vs. 46 mm and 16.5 g for diet 3 vs. 47 mm and 17 g for controls). In addition, diet 2 nestlings had higher blood lutein levels and correspondingly higher carotenoid chroma (a measure of colour intensity) in breast feathers than other diets and control chicks across both pollution levels (7.5-15.0 µg/ml blood lutein and 0.30-0.35 carotenoid chroma for diet 1 vs. 24.0-28.0 µg/ml and 0.41-0.45 for diet 2 vs. 7.5-16.0 µg/ml and 0.30-0.36 for diet 3 vs. 5.5-17.5 µg/ml and 0.30-0.36 for controls). Supplementary food did not have an effect on fledgling probability. One gram of food was provided every other day from the third day after hatching to the 13th, making approximately 20% of the required food in this time.

     

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust