spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online March 31, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1391-1397 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.004598
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Portugal, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Butler, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Portugal, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Butler, P. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Annual changes in body mass and resting metabolism in captive barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis): the importance of wing moult

Steven J. Portugal1,*, Jonathan A. Green1,2 and Patrick J. Butler1

1 Centre for Ornithology, School of Biosciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
2 Department of Zoology, LaTrobe University, Melbourne 3086, Australia


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Year-round mean weekly body mass for 14 captive barnacle geese for 2004 and 2005. Horizontal black bars indicate approximate period of wing moult. Shaded areas relate to migratory periods in wild barnacle geese. Mass changed significantly throughout the year for both years sampled (repeated-measures ANOVA P<0.0001 for years 1 and 2, respectively).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Relationship between mass change and size-adjusted initial body mass of 14 captive barnacle geese during wing moult (r2=0.36, P=0.02). After adjusting for body size, heavier birds still lost body mass at a proportionately greater rate. Size-adjusted body mass is calculated as body mass (g) divided by length of the tarsus (cm).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Year-round average weekly masses for 14 barnacle geese (grey circles) with rates of oxygen uptake measurements (N=6 ± s.e.m.) at six points of the year. Triangles represent night resting values and squares day resting values. X error bars represent duration of sampling period. Both day and night resting rates varied significantly throughout the year (repeated-measures ANOVA, P<0.001 and P<0.004, respectively) and followed a similar pattern. Black bar indicates the wing moult period.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Time–activity budgets (%) for 14 captive barnacle geese, for pre- (A, June), during (B, August) and post- (C, November) wing moult. The time dedicated to alert behaviour was less than 1% and is not shown.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007