Updates are available Correction dated 2024-02-15
Click to view Correction: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03446-7
-
Authors
Madden, Sage A. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8536-2091
McDermott, Molly T. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-0831
Safran, Rebecca J. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4762-2638
-
Funding
Funding for this research was provided by:
Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (NSF-DEB-CAREER 1149942, NSF-IOS-1856266)
- License Information
-
More Information
Article History
Received: 28 July 2022
Revised: 15 August 2022
Accepted: 6 September 2022
First Online: 23 September 2022
Change Date: 15 February 2024
Change Type: Correction
Change Details: A Correction to this paper has been published:
Change Details: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03446-7
Declarations
:
: All field methods used in this study adhered to the guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioral research and teaching set forth by the Animal Behavior Society (ABS)/Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB). Field methods were approved by the IACUC committee at the University of Colorado Boulder (protocol #2685), including consideration of all methods and sample sizes. All field researchers completed required animal care training prior to field work. Field work was conducted under federal (permit #23505) and state (permits #19TRb2005 and #20TRb2005) bird banding permits. No birds involved in this experiment were injured or died in our care, and no experimental nests were deserted following brood size manipulation or GPS tagging. Use of a paired experimental design for the brood size manipulation experiment allowed us to minimize the number of manipulated nests. The GPS tags in our study ranged from 5 to 8% of the birds’ body mass, and all our experimental birds carried tags for only a short period—2 weeks or less (mean = 9.6 days, SD = 1.9). All tags were successfully recovered during the breeding season. GPS tags can increase energy expenditure and reduce productivity, but proportionally heavier devices do not have greater effects than lighter devices (Barron et al. ). We expected our tags to increase energy expenditure, but due to the short-term deployment, we did not expect effects on survival and reproduction. A concurrent study of the physiological and fitness costs of reproduction and GPS tagging reported that tags had some physiological effects, including altered immune function, but did not affect reproductive outcomes during second broods (McDermott ).
: The authors declare no competing interests.
