Many cooperative bird species have an extended period of post-fledging care. Despite the fact that this period of care can last up to several months, it remains a relatively understudied stage of chick development. This period, when young are actively begging but highly mobile, provides an opportunity for young to maximise the amount of care they receive by selectively choosing particular adults to beg from. In pied babblers Turdoides bicolor (a cooperatively breeding passerine), fledglings closely follow foraging adults and beg for food regularly (a behavioural interaction termed social foraging). Using a combination of natural observations and experimental manipulations, we found that fledgling pied babblers preferentially socially forage with adult care-givers who have high foraging success, since this results in young receiving more food. By supplementally feeding adults to artificially increase their foraging success, we increased the proportion of time that fledglings chose to socially forage with them, confirming that fledglings are selectively choosing dyadic interactions with the best adult foragers. These results indicate that pied babbler fledglings are sensitive to and can respond to short-term changes in adult foraging success, enabling them to maximize their nutritional intake, a behavioural adjustment that has long-term benefits in this system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank the British Ecological Society and the DST/NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute for funding this research. We are grateful to Prof. Tim Clutton-Brock and Prof. Marta Manser for the use of the facilities and land access at the Kuruman River Reserve, and the De Bruins and Kotzes for allowing us access to their land. We thank Prof. Phil Hockey for his continued support of the Pied Babbler Research Project and Mike Finnie for his support in this research. Comments from three anonymous reviewers greatly improved this manuscript.
The experiments conducted in this study comply with the current laws of South Africa. This research was conducted under the ethical clearance from the Science Faculty Animal Ethics Board, University of Cape Town (R2012/2006/V15/AR) and with research permits being issued by the Northern Cape Conservation Authority.
Bell MBV, Radford AN, Rose R, Wade HM, Ridley AR (2009) The value of constant surveillance in a risky environment. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2997–3005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson H, Rydén O (1983) Parental feeding rate in relation to begging behaviour in asynchronously hatched broods of great tit Parus major: an experimental study. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland CRJ, Heinsohn R, Cockburn A (1997) Experimental manipulation of brood reduction and parental care in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs. J Anim Ecol 66:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser MB, Avey G (2000) The effect of pup vocalisations on food allocation in a cooperative mammal, the meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser MB, Madden JR, Kunc HP, English S, Clutton-Brock TH (2008) Signals of need in a cooperatively breeding mammal with mobile offspring. Anim Behav 76:1805–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowan KJ, Woolfenden GE (1990) Contributions to fledgling feeding in the Florida scrub-jay. J Anim Ecol 59:691–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midford PE, Hailman JP, Woolfenden GE (2000) Social learning of a novel foraging patch in families of free-living Florida scrub-jays. Anim Behav 59:1199–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mock DW, Parker GA (1998) Siblicide, Family conflict and the evolutionary limits of selfishness. Anim Behav 56:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford AN, Ridley AR (2006) Recruitment calling: a novel form of extended parental care in an altricial species. Curr Biol 16:1700–1704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raihani NJ (2008) Cooperation and conflict in pied babblers. Dissertation, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Raihani NJ, Ridley AR (2007a) Adult vocalisations during provisioning: offspring response and postfledging benefits in wild pied babblers. Anim Behav 74:1303–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raihani NJ, Ridley AR (2007b) Parental aggression against dependent young results in task partitioning in a cooperative bird. Biol Lett 4:24–26Google Scholar
Raihani NJ, Ridley AR (2008) Experimental evidence for teaching in wild pied babblers. Anim Behav 75:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raihani NJ, Ridley AR, Browning LE, Nelson-Flower MJ, Knowles S (2008) Juvenile female aggression in cooperatively breeding pied babblers: causes and contexts. Ethology 114:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley AR (2007) Factors affecting offspring survival and development in a cooperative bird: social, maternal and environmental effects. J Anim Ecol 76:750–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley AR, Raihani NJ (2007a) Variable post-fledgling care in a cooperative bird: causes and consequences. Behav Ecol 18:994–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley AR, Raihani NJ (2007b) Facultative response to a kleptoparasite by the cooperatively breeding pied babbler. Behav Ecol 18:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley AR, Raihani NJ (2008) Task partitioning increases reproductive output in a cooperative bird. Behav Ecol 19:1136–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley AR, Thompson AM (2011) Heterospecific egg destruction by the wattled starling and its impact on pied babbler reproductive success. Ostrich 82:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell EM (2000) Avian life histories: is extended parental care a southern secret? Emu 100:377–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell AF, Clutton-Brock TH, Brotherton PNM, Sharpe LL, McIlrath GM, Dalerum FD, Cameron EZ, Barnard JA (2002) Factors affecting pup growth and survival in co-operatively breeding meerkats Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 71:700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell EM, Yom-Tov Y, Geffen E (2004) Extended parental care and delayed dispersal: northern, tropical and southern passerines compared. Behav Ecol 15:831–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankamethawee W, Gale GA, Hardesty BE (2009) Post-fledging survival of the cooperatively breeding puff-throated bulbul (Alophoixus pallidus). Condor 111:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suedkamp Wells KM, Ryan MR, Millspaugh JJ, Thompson FR III, Hubbard MW (2007) Survival of postfledging grassland birds in Missouri. Condor 109:781–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symonds MRE, Moussalli A (2011) A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarwater CE, Brawn JD (2010) The post-fledging period in a tropical bird: pattern of parental care and survival. J Avian Biol 41:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkel J (1994) Social transmission of pine cone feeding behaviour in the black rat. In: Galef BG, Mainardi M, Valsecchi P (eds) Behavioral aspects of feeding. Harwood Academic, Chur, pp 229–256Google Scholar