Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Carotenoids and egg quality in the lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus: a supplemental feeding study of maternal effects

Open access
Blount, Jonathan D., Surai, Peter F., Nager, Ruedi G., Houston, David C., Møller, Anders Pape, Trewby, Michael L., Kennedy, Malcolm W.·2002·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Egg quality is a phenotype of, and can profoundly influence fitness in, both mother and offspring. However, the physiological mechanisms that underlie this maternal effect are poorly understood. Carotenoids are hypothesized to enhance antioxidant activity and immune function, and are responsible for the pigmentation of egg yolk. The proximate basis and consequences of this maternal investment, however, have not previously been studied in wild birds. In this supplemental feeding study of lesser black-backed gulls, Larus fuscus, carotenoid-fed females are shown to have increased integument pigmentation, higher plasma concentrations of carotenoids and antioxidant activity, and lower plasma concentrations of immunoglobulins (Igs) in comparison with controls. In turn, carotenoid-fed females produced eggs containing high carotenoid but low Ig concentrations (i.e. passive immunity), whereas control females produced eggs containing low carotenoid but high Ig concentrations. Within-clutch patterns of these resources varied over the laying sequence in a similar manner in both carotenoid-fed and control nests. Our results suggest that carotenoids could be one resource responsible for egg quality maternal effects in birds. We discuss the possible implications of carotenoid-mediated effects on phenotype for fitness in mothers and their offspring.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2001.1840

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Blount, J. D., Surai, P. F., Nager, R. G., Houston, D. C., Møller, A. P., Trewby, M. L., & Kennedy, M. W.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2002-01-07
Volume
269
Issue
1486
Pages
29-36
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2078995331
Cited by
309
References
37
FWCI
21.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Carotenoids and egg quality in the lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus: a supplemental feeding study of maternal effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2001.1840
The paper
Blount, J. D., Surai, P. F., Nager, R. G., Houston, D. C., Møller, A. P., Trewby, M. L., & Kennedy, M. W. (2002). Carotenoids and egg quality in the lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus: a supplemental feeding study of maternal effects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1840

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.