The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Avian egg size: variation within species and inflexibility within individuals
Abstract
Egg size is a widely‐studied trait and yet the causes and consequences of variation in this trait remain poorly understood. Egg size varies greatly within many avian species, with the largest egg in a population generally being at least 50% bigger, and sometimes twice as large, as the smallest. Generally, approximately 70% of the variation in egg mass is due to variation between rather than within clutches, although there are some cases of extreme intra‐clutch egg‐size variation. Despite the large amount of variation in egg size between females, this trait is highly consistent within individuals between breeding attempts; the repeatability of egg size is generally above 0.6 and tends to be higher than that of clutch size or laying date. Heritability estimates also tend to be much higher for egg size (> 0.5) than for clutch size or laying date (< 0.5). As expected, given the high repeatability and heritability of egg size, supplemental food had no statistically significant effect on this trait in 18 out of 28 (64%) studies. Where dietary supplements do increase egg size, the effect is never more than 13% of the control values and is generally much less. Similarly, ambient temperature during egg formation generally explains less than 15% of the variation in egg size. In short, egg size appears to be a characteristic of individual females, and yet the traits of a female that determine egg size are not clear. Although egg size often increases with female age (17 out of 37 studies), the change in egg size is generally less than 10%. Female mass and size rarely explain more than 20% of the variation in egg size within species. A female's egg size is not consistently related to other aspects of reproductive performance such as clutch size, laying date, or the pair's ability to rear young. Physiological characteristics of the female (e.g. endogenous protein stores, oviduct mass, rate of protein uptake by ovarian follicles) show more promise as potential determinants of egg size. With regards to the consequences of egg‐size variation for offspring fitness, egg size is often correlated with offspring mass and size within the first week after hatching, but the evidence for more long‐lasting effects on chick growth and survival is equivocal. In other oviparous vertebrates, the magnitude of egg‐size variation within populations is often as great or greater than that observed within avian populations. Although there are much fewer estimates of the repeatability of egg size in other taxa, the available evidence suggests that egg size may be more flexible within individuals. Furthermore, in non‐avian species (particularly fish and turtles), it is more common for female mass or size to explain a substantial proportion of the variation in egg size. Further research into the physiological basis of egg‐size variation is needed to shed light on both the proximate and ultimate causes of intraspecific variation in this trait in birds.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Introduction to Quantitative Genetics.
Edwards, A. W. F., & Falconer, D. S. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529912 · Cited by 21,447
Introduction to Quantitative Genetics
G., J.-M., & Falconer, D. S. (1962) · Population (French Edition) · doi:10.2307/1525780 · Cited by 3,705
The Optimal Balance between Size and Number of Offspring
Smith, C. C., & Fretwell, S. D. (1974) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282929 · Cited by 2,918
Unrepeatable Repeatabilities: A Common Mistake
Lessells, C. M., & Boag, P. T. (1987) · The Auk · doi:10.2307/4087240 · Cited by 2,916
Acquisition and Allocation of Resources: Their Influence on Variation in Life History Tactics
van Noordwijk, A. J., & de Jong, G. (1986) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284547 · Cited by 2,383
Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components
Mousseau, T. A., & Roff, D. A. (1987) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/hdy.1987.113 · Cited by 1,661
Evolutionary Ecology of Progeny Size in Arthropods
Fox, C. W., & Czesak, M. E. (2000) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.341 · Cited by 809
INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION IN EGG SIZE AND EGG COMPOSITION IN BIRDS: EFFECTS ON OFFSPRING FITNESS
Williams, T. D. (1994) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1994.tb01485.x · Cited by 801
BERNARDO, J. (1996) · American Zoologist · doi:10.1093/icb/36.2.216 · Cited by 746
New directions in ecological physiology
Sibly, R. (1988) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(88)90093-6 · Cited by 553
Cited by
Egg size and offspring quality: a meta‐analysis in birds
Krist, M. (2011) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00166.x · Cited by 472
NATURAL SELECTION AND INHERITANCE OF BREEDING TIME AND CLUTCH SIZE IN THE COLLARED FLYCATCHER
Sheldon, B. C., Kruuk, L. E. B., & Merila, J. (2003) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00274.x · Cited by 285
Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate
Holveck, M.-J., & Riebel, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1222 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- CHRISTIANS, J. K.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-26
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W2106841717
- Cited by
- 614
- References
- 116
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Avian egg size: variation within species and inflexibility within individuals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1464793101005784
- The paper
- CHRISTIANS, J. K. (2002). Avian egg size: variation within species and inflexibility within individuals. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793101005784
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.