Double-brooding and annual breeding success of great tits in urban and forest habitats.

Urban areas differ from natural habitats in several environmental features that influence the characteristics of animals living there. For example, birds often start breeding seasonally earlier and fledge fewer offspring per brood in cities than in natural habitats. However, longer breeding seasons in cities may increase the frequency of double-brooding in urban compared with nonurban populations, thus potentially increasing urban birds' annual reproductive output and resulting in lower habitat difference in reproductive success than estimated by studies focusing on first clutches only. In this study, we investigated 2 urban and 2 forests great tit Parus major populations from 2013 to 2019. We compared the probability of double-brooding and the total number of annually fledged chicks per female between urban and forest habitats, while controlling for the effects of potentially confounding variables. There was a trend for a higher probability of double-brooding in urban (44% of females) than in forest populations (36%), although this was not consistent between the 2 urban sites. Females produced significantly fewer fledglings annually in the cities than in the forest sites, and this difference was present both within single- and double-brooded females. Furthermore, double-brooded urban females produced a similar number of fledglings per season as single-brooded forest females. These results indicate that double-brooding increases the reproductive success of female great tits in both habitats, but urban females cannot effectively compensate in this way for their lower reproductive output per brood. However, other mechanisms like increased post-fledging survival can mitigate habitat differences in reproductive success.

Contrasting effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on urban birds' reproductive success in two cities.

The ubiquitous activity of humans is a fundamental feature of urban environments affecting local wildlife in several ways. Testing the influence of human disturbance would ideally need experimental approach, however, in cities, this is challenging at relevant spatial and temporal scales. Thus, to better understand the ecological effects of human activity, we exploited the opportunity that the city-wide lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic provided during the spring of 2020. We assessed changes in reproductive success of great tits (Parus major) at two urban habitats affected strikingly differently by the 'anthropause', and at an unaffected forest site. Our results do not support that urban great tits benefited from reduced human mobility during the lockdown. First, at one of our urban sites, the strongly (- 44%) reduced human disturbance in 2020 (compared to a long-term reference period) did not increase birds' reproductive output relative to the forest habitat where human disturbance was low in all years. Second, in the other urban habitat, recreational human activity considerably increased (+ 40%) during the lockdown and this was associated with strongly reduced nestling body size compared to the pre-COVID reference year. Analyses of other environmental factors (meteorological conditions, lockdown-induced changes in air pollution) suggest that these are not likely to explain our results. Our study supports that intensified human disturbance can have adverse fitness consequences in urban populations. It also highlights that a few months of 'anthropause' is not enough to counterweight the detrimental impacts of urbanization on local wildlife populations.

Uncertainty in experts' judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals' cognitive abilities.

Expertise in science, particularly in animal behaviour, may provide people with the capacity to provide better judgments in contrast to lay people. Here we explore whether experts provide a more objective, accurate and coherent evaluation of a recently reported anecdote on Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) "tool use" (recorded on video) which was published in a major scientific journal but was received with some scepticism. We relied on citizen science and developed a questionnaire to measure whether experts in ethology and ornithology and lay people agree or disagree on (1) the description of the actions that they observe (the bird takes a stick in its beak), (2) the possible goal of the action (nest-building or grooming) and (3) the intentional component of the action (the bird took the stick into its beak in order to scratch itself). We hypothesised that contrary to the lay people, experts are more critical evaluators that is they are more inclined to report alternative actions, like nest building, or are less likely to attributing goal-directedness to the action in the absence of evidence. In contrast, lay people may be more prone to anthropomorphise utilising a teleological and intentional stance. Alternatively, all three groups of subjects may rely on anthropomorphism at similar levels and prior expertise does not play a significant role. We found that no major differences among the evaluators. At the group levels, respondents were relatively uncertain with regard to the action of the bird seen on the video but they showed some individual consistency with regard to the description of the action. Thus, we conclude that paradoxically, with regard to the task our experts are typically not experts in the strict sense of the definition, and suggest that anecdotal reports should not be used to argue about mental processes.

Food availability limits avian reproduction in the city: An experimental study on great tits Parus major.

The altered ecological and environmental conditions in towns and cities strongly affect demographic traits of urban animal populations, for example avian reproductive success is often reduced. Previous work suggests that this is partly driven by low insect availability during the breeding season, but robust experimental evidence that supports this food limitation hypothesis is not yet available. We tested core predictions of the food limitation hypothesis using a controlled experiment that provided supplementary insect food (nutritionally enhanced mealworms supplied daily to meet 40%-50% of each supplemented brood's food requirements) to great tit nestlings in urban and forest habitats. We measured parental provisioning rates and estimated the amount of supplementary food consumed by control and experimental nestlings, and assessed their body size and survival rates. Provisioning rates were similar across habitats and control and supplemented broods, but supplemented (and not control) broods consumed large quantities of supplementary food. As predicted by the food limitation hypothesis we found that nestlings in (a) urban control broods had smaller body size and nestling survival rates than those in forest control broods; (b) forest supplemented and control broods had similar body size and survival rates; (c) urban supplemented nestlings had larger body size and survival rates than those in urban control broods; and crucially (d) urban supplemented broods had similar body size and survival rates to nestlings in forest control broods. Our results provide rare experimental support for the strong negative effects of food limitation during the nestling rearing period on urban birds' breeding success. Furthermore, the fact that supplementary food almost completely eliminated habitat differences in survival rate and nestling body size suggest that urban stressors other than food shortage contributed relatively little to the reduced avian breeding success. Finally, given the impacts of the amount of supplementary food that we provided and taking clutch size differences into account, our results suggest that urban insect populations in our study system would need to be increased by a factor of at least 2.5 for urban and forest great tits to have similar reproductive success.