A phylogenetic comparative analysis reveals correlations between body feather structure and habitat. (19th January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pap, Péter L.; Vincze, Orsolya; Wekerle, Beatrix; Daubner, Timea; Vágási, Csongor I.; Nudds, Robert L.; Dyke, Gareth J.; Osváth, Gergely
• Editors: Gremillet, David
• Is Part Of: Functional ecology. Volume 31:Number 6(2017)
• Page Start: 1241
• Page End: 1251
• Publication Date: 2017-01-19
• Subjects: body feathers -- feather lengths -- functional morphology -- thermal insulation -- vane density -- water repellence; Ecology -- Periodicals; 574.505
• DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12820
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0269-8463

Abstract

Summary: Body feathers ensure both waterproofing and insulation in waterbirds, but how natural variation in the morphological properties of these appendages relates to environmental constraints remains largely unexplored. Here, we test how habitat and thermal condition affect the morphology of body feathers, using a phylogenetic comparative analysis of five structural traits [i.e., total feather length, the lengths of the pennaceous (distal) and plumulaceous (proximal) sections, barb density, and pennaceous barbule density] from a sample of 194 European bird species. Body feather total length is shorter in aquatic than in terrestrial birds, and this difference between groups is due to the shorter plumulaceous feather section in aquatic birds. Indeed, a reduced plumulaceous section in feather length probably reflects the need to limit air trapped in the plumage to adjust the buoyancy of aquatic birds. In contrast, the high pennaceous barbule density of aquatic birds compared to their terrestrial counterparts reflects water resistance of the plumage in contact with water. Our results show that birds living in environments with low ambient temperature have long plumulaceous feather lengths, low barb density, and low pennaceous barbule density. Data also suggest that plumage probably has limited function in reducing the heat absorption of species living in hot environments. Our results have broad implications for understanding the suite of selection pressures driving the evolution of body feather functional morphology. It remains to be tested, however, how other feather traits, such as the density of plumage (feathers per unit area) and the relative number of different feather types, for example downy feathers, are distributed amongst birds with different water resistance and thermoinsulative needs. A lay summary is available for this article. Abstract : Lay Summary