ArticleOecologia2026
Female chronotype relates to lay date but not fitness in an island population of great tits.
Article in Oecologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Organisms use diel timing mechanisms to anticipate predictable daily environmental fluctuations, such as the start and end of the day light period. There is often ample intraspecific variation in this diel timing, with individuals being consistently active earlier or later than others in the population and therefore having early or late chronotypes. In tit species, early-active males have higher rates of extrapair paternity, and early-active females might have more offspring, thereby increasing their fitness. However, studies on these fitness consequences of chronotype tend to be inconclusive, based on small sample sizes and confounded with seasonal effects on activity timing. Here, we measured the fitness of standardised chronotype in female great tits (Parus major) across three breeding seasons. We extracted activity onsets, when females first left the nest in the morning, from recordings of nest temperatures during incubation and chick provisioning. To account for seasonal and daily variation in the timing of activity, we expressed these onsets relative to the conspecifics active on the same day. The chronotypes of 164 females were tested for differences in fitness and life-history parameters from brood monitoring data. We show that chronotype was not significantly related to fitness parameters, such as the number of fledglings and hatchlings, nor to offspring and female condition. However, extremely early and late chronotypes started breeding later in our population, but not in the re-analysed datasets from three other populations. Our findings suggest that chronotype is not under strong selection, or perhaps under fluctuating selection, allowing high between-individual variation to persist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.