Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 5, pp 673–682 | Cite as

The social context of a territorial dispute differentially influences the way individuals in breeding pairs coordinate their aggressive tactics

  • Eric R. Schuppe
  • Gloria D. Sanin
  • Matthew J. Fuxjager
Original Article

Abstract

In diverse species, individuals coordinate behavior to accomplish shared goals or tasks. Such coordination, however, often occurs selectively, and the contextual information animals use to determine when they coordinate and when they do not is unclear. We investigate this issue in the highly territorial downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) by exploring how individuals within a social breeding pair differentially modulate coordinated aggressive responses during graded simulated territorial intrusions (STIs). Analyses show that resident pairs mount a more robust aggressive response to STIs that represent a greater threat. Moreover, in this social context, pair members produce contact vocalizations in a way that predicts their partner’s aggressive behavior. We also show that, when presented with a low threat, individuals that first respond to intrusions decrease their aggressive output once their partner attends to the stimulus; the partner, in turn, increases their levels of aggressive behavior. This does not occur in high-threat STIs, where both partners maintain high levels of aggression throughout the entire encounter. Together, these results show that individuals within a pair flexibly adjust their aggressive tactics in response to different social competitive contexts, and this includes adjusting the way in which individuals coordinate certain aspects of their agonistic repertoire. We speculate that this ability reflects an adaptive mechanism that allows individuals to fine-tune territorial tactics to reduce overall costs of aggression.

Significance statement

Although research has demonstrated that individuals often coordinate their behavior to accomplish common tasks, little is known about the factors that determine when such coordination occurs and when it does not. We address this issue for the first time in the highly territorial downy woodpecker by testing how the level of threat associated with a territorial interaction influences the coordination of defensive behavior. We find that, when facing intruders that pose a greater threat, residents adjust levels of aggressive output in response to the number of vocalizations produced by their breeding partner. By contrast, this relationship is not observed when pairs face intruders that pose a relatively lower threat. Our data therefore provide striking evidence that coordination in defensive tactics depends on the residents’ appraisal of the social context, such that fiercer competition is associated with greater behavioral coordination.

Keywords

Social behavior Territorial aggression Cooperation Monogamy Downy woodpecker 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Johnny Peterson, Ashton Caudle, and Mia Harris for their assistance in collecting and analyzing the data. We thank the volunteer members of the Forsyth County Audubon Society who allowed us to collect the data on their property and who helped implement the study. We thank Ben Pearlman and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Wake Forest University institutional funds (to MJF) support this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Lastly, this article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2016_2088_MOESM1_ESM.docx (303 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 303 kb)

References

  1. Behr O (2006) Territorial songs indicate male quality in the sac-winged bat Saccopteryx bilineata (Chiroptera, Emballonuridae). Behav Ecol 17:810–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell MB, Radford AN, Smith RA, Thompson AM, Ridley AR (2010) Bargaining babblers: vocal negotiation of cooperative behaviour in a social bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:3223–3228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedict L, Rose A, Warning N (2012) Canyon wrens alter their songs in response to territorial challenges. Anim Behav 84:1463–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briefer E, Rybak F, Aubin T (2008) When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Anim Behav 76:1319–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budaev SV (2010) Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conner RN (1980) Foraging habitats of woodpeckers in Southwestern Virginia. J Fields Ornithol 51:119–127Google Scholar
  7. Desjardins JK, Hofmann HA, Fernald RD (2012) Social context influences aggressive and courtship behavior in a cichlid fish. PLoS ONE 7, e32781CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodenhoff DJ (2002) An analysis of acoustic communication within the social system of downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens). PhD Thesis, Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodenhoff DJ, Stark RD, Johnson EV (2001) Do woodpecker drums encode information for species recognition? Condor 103:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farabaugh SM, Brown ED, Hughes JM (1992) Cooperative territorial defense in the Australian magpie, Gymnorhina tibicen (Passeriformes, Cracticidae), a group-living songbird. Ethology 92:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuxjager MJ, Marler CA (2010) How and why the winner effect forms: influences of contest environment and species differences. Behav Ecol 21:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuxjager MJ, Mast G, Becker EA, Marler CA (2009) The ‘home advantage’ is necessary for a full winner effect and changes in post-encounter testosterone. Horm Behav 56:214–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuxjager MJ, Montgomery JL, Becker EA, Marler CA (2010) Deciding to win: interactive effects of residency, resources and ‘boldness’ on contest outcome in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 80:921–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin SE, Podos J (2014) Team of rivals: alliance formation in territorial songbirds is predicted by vocal signal structure. Biol Lett 10:20131083CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Graber JW, Graber RR, Kirk EL (1977) Illinois birds: Picidae. Ill Nat Hist Surv Biol Notes 102:15–21Google Scholar
  16. Hall ML (2000) The function of duetting in magpie-larks: conflict, cooperation, or commitment? Anim Behav 60:667–677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall ML (2004) A review of hypotheses for the functions of avian duetting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall ML, Magrath RD (2007) Temporal coordination signals coalition quality. Curr Biol 17:R406–R407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall ML, Peters A (2008) Coordination between the sexes for territorial defence in a duetting fairy-wren. Anim Behav 76:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Husak MS (2000) Seasonal variation in territorial behavior of golden-fronted woodpeckers in west-central Texas. Southwest Nat 45:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ioannou CC, Guttal V, Couzin ID (2012) Predatory fish select for coordinated collective motion in virtual prey. Science 337:1212–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson JA, Ouellet HR (2002) Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America. The Birds of North America Inc., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Kellam JS, Lucas JR (2014) Exogenous testosterone in male downy woodpeckers leads to reduced calling behavior of both males and their female partners during the non-breeding period. Wilson J Ornithol 126:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellam JS, Wingfield JC, Lucas JR (2004) Nonbreeding season pairing behavior and the annual cycle of testosterone in male and female downy woodpeckers, Picoides pubescens. Horm Behav 46:703–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kilham L (1962) Reproductive behavior of downy woodpeckers. Condor 64:126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilham L (1974) Early breeding season behavior of downy woodpeckers. Wilson J Ornithol 86:407–418Google Scholar
  27. Koloff J, Mennill D (2011) Aggressive responses to playback of solos and duets in a Neotropical antbird. Anim Behav 82:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kovach KA, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL, Mennill DJ (2014) Timing isn’t everything: responses of tropical wrens to coordinated duets, uncoordinated duets and alternating solos. Anim Behav 95:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence LDK (1967) A comparative life-history study of four species of woodpeckers. Ornithol Monogr 5:1–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leedale AE, Collins SA, de Kort SR, Manser M (2015) Blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) increase the whistle part of their song in response to simulated territorial intrusion. Ethology 121:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ligon JD (1970) Behavior and breeding biology of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Auk 87:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mager JN III, Walcott C, Piper WH (2012) Male common loons signal greater aggressive motivation by lengthening territorial yodels. Wilson J Ornithol 124:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall-Ball L, Mann N, Slater PJB (2006) Multiple functions to duet singing: hidden conflicts and apparent cooperation. Anim Behav 71:823–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McComb K, Packer C, Pusey A (1994) Roaring and numerical assessment in contests between groups of female lions, Panthera leo. Anim Behav 47:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moseley D, Lahti D, Podos J (2013) Responses to song playback vary with the vocal performance of both signal senders and receivers. Proc R Soc B 280:20131401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Mowles SL, Ord TJ (2012) Repetitive signals and mate choice: insights from contest theory. Anim Behav 84:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson DA, Poesel A (2011) Song length variation serves multiple functions in the white-crowned sparrow. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1103–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelson DA, Poesel A (2012) Responses to variation in song length by male white-crowned sparrows. Ethology 118:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pasinelli G, Hegelbach J, Reyer H-U (2001) Spacing behavior of the middle spotted woodpecker in central Europe. J Wildl Manag 65:432–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quinard A, Cézilly F (2012) Sex roles during conspecific territorial defence in the Zenaida dove, Zenaida aurita. Anim Behav 83:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ritchison G (1999) Downy woodpecker. Stackpole Books, MechanicsburgGoogle Scholar
  42. Rivera-Gutierrez HF, Pinxten R, Eens M (2010) Multiple signals for multiple messages: great tit, Parus major, song signals age and survival. Anim Behav 80:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers AC, Ferguson JE, Harrington HM, McDowell S, Miller A, Panagos J (2004) Use of stereo duet playback to investigate traditional duet playback methods and mechanisms of cooperative territorial defence in Magpie-Larks. Behaviour 141:741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schroeder RL (1983) Habitat suitability index models: downy woodpecker. US Dept Int, Fish Wildl Serv, FWS/OBS-82/1038, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Schuster R, Perelberg A (2004) Why cooperate? An economic perspective is not enough. Behav Process 66:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Searcy WA, Beecher MD (2009) Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds. Anim Behav 78:1281–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seddon N (2005) Duets defend mates in a suboscine passerine, the warbling antbird (Hypocnemis cantator). Behav Ecol 17:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seddon N, Tobias JA (2003) Communal singing in the cooperatively breeding subdesert mesite Monias benschi: evidence of numerical assessment? J Avian Biol 34:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Short LL (1974) Habits and interactions of North American three-toed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus and Picoides tridactylus). Am Mus Novit 2547:1–47Google Scholar
  50. Stark RD, Dodenhoff DJ, Johnson EV (1998) A quantitative analysis of woodpecker drumming. Condor 100:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tabachnick NG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Temeles EJ (1990) Northern harriers on feeding territories respond more aggressively to neighbors than to floaters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Templeton CN, Rivera-Cáceres KD, Mann NI, Slater PJB (2011) Song duets function primarily as cooperative displays in pairs of happy wrens. Anim Behav 82:1399–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tóth E, Duffy JE (2005) Coordinated group response to nest intruders in social shrimp. Biol Lett 1:49–52CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Townsend SW, Zöttl M, Manser MB (2011) All clear? Meerkats attend to contextual information in close calls to coordinate vigilance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1927–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Werdenich D, Huber L (2002) Social factors determine cooperation in marmosets. Anim Behav 64:771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiebe KL, Koenig WD, Martin K (2007) Costs and benefits of nest reuse versus excavation in cavity-nesting birds. Ann Zool Fenn 44:209–217Google Scholar
  58. Wilkins HD, Ritchison G (1999) Drumming and tapping by red-bellied woodpeckers: description and possible causation. J Fields Ornithol 70:578–586Google Scholar
  59. Wilson DS, Wilson EO (2007) Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. Q Rev Biol 82:327–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Yip E, Rayor L (2011) Do social spiders cooperate in predator defense and foraging without a web? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1935–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric R. Schuppe
    • 1
  • Gloria D. Sanin
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Fuxjager
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations