Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 993–1000 | Cite as

Nestling barn owls assess short-term variation in the amount of vocally competing siblings

  • Charlène A. Ruppli
  • Amélie N. Dreiss
  • Alexandre Roulin
Original Paper

Abstract

Assessing the amount of rivals is crucial to optimally adjust investment into a contest. If laboratory animals show numerical abilities, little is known about the ecological implications particularly in young animals. The two to nine barn owl (Tyto alba) siblings vocally compete for priority of access to food resources before parents actually deliver them. In dyads, the individual that vocalizes at the highest rate in the absence of parents deters its siblings from competing for next delivered prey. We tested the novel hypothesis that to optimally adjust vocal investment, barn owl nestlings assess how many of their siblings are currently competing. To singleton owlets, we broadcasted a fixed global number of calls emitted by one, two or four pre-recorded unfamiliar nestlings. We could thus distinguish the independent effect on singletons’ vocal behavior of the global number of calls produced by a brood from the number of competitors that produced these calls. Overall, nestlings retreated more from vocal contest when facing more competitors. However, in front of one highly motivated competitor, nestlings refrained from vocalizing to a larger extent than when competing against more but less motivated individuals. Therefore, young animals assess variation in the number of currently competing siblings based on individual-specific vocal cues.

Keywords

Competition Numerical ability Sibling negotiation Vocal communication 

References

  1. Addessi E, Crescimbene L, Visalberghi E (2008) Food and token quantity discrimination in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cogn 11(2):275–282. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0111-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A (2010) Large number discrimination by Mosquitofish. Plos One 5(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015232
  3. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A (2011) Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish. Cognition 119(2):281–287. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson-Amram S, Heinen VK, Dryer SL, Holekamp KE (2011) Numerical assessment and individual call discrimination by wild spotted hyaenas, Crocuta crocuta. Anim Behav 82(4):743–752. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bisazza A, Piffer L, Serena G, Agrillo C (2010) Ontogeny of numerical abilities in fish. Plos One 5(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015516
  6. Brannon EM, Terrace HS (1998) Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. Science 282(5389):746–749. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.746 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carazo P, Font E, Forteza-Behrendt E, Desfilis E (2009) Quantity discrimination in Tenebrio molitor: evidence of numerosity discrimination in an invertebrate? Anim Cogn 12(3):463–470. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0207-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cotton PA, Wright J, Kacelnik A (1999) Chick begging strategies in relation to brood hierarchies and hatching asynchrony. Am Nat 153(4):412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dacke M, Srinivasan MV (2008) Evidence for counting in insects. Anim Cogn 11(4):683–689. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0159-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreiss AN, Henry I, Ruppli C, Almasi B, Roulin A (2010a) Darker eumelanic barn owls better withstand food depletion through resistance to food deprivation and lower appetite. Oecologia 164(1):65–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreiss AN, Lahlah N, Roulin A (2010b) How siblings adjust sib–sib communication and begging signals to each other. Anim Behav 80:1049–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreiss AN, Ruppli CA, Faller C, Roulin A (2012) Big brother is watching you: eavesdropping to resolve family conflicts. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/ars210
  13. Enquist M, Leimar O (1983) Evolution of fighting behavior: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J Theor Biol 102(3):387–410. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(83)90376-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser M (2002) The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol Sci 13(2):150–156. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00427 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2011) Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s law. Anim Cogn 14(1):1–9. doi:10.1007/s10071-010-0337-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross HJ, Pahl M, Si A, Zhu H, Tautz J, Zhang S (2009) Number-based visual generalisation in the honeybee. Plos One 4(1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004263
  17. Hauser MD, Dehaene S, Dehaene-Lambertz G, Patalano AL (2002) Spontaneous number discrimination of multi-format auditory stimuli in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Cognition 86(2):B23–B32. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00158-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt S, Low J, Burns KC (2008) Adaptive numerical competency in a food-hoarding songbird. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 275(1649):2373–2379. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Izard V, Sann C, Spelke ES, Streri A (2009) Newborn infants perceive abstract numbers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(25):10382–10385. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812142106 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnstone RA, Roulin A (2003) Sibling negotiation. Behav Ecol 14(6):780–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jordan KE, Brannon EM (2006) The multisensory representation of number in infancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(9):3486–3489. doi:10.1073/pnas.0508107103 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan KE, Brannon EM, Logothetis NK, Ghazanfar AA (2005) Monkeys match the number of voices they hear to the number of faces they see. Curr Biol 15(11):1034–1038. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.04.056 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilian A, Yaman S, von Fersen L, Güntürkün O (2003) A bottlenose dolphin discriminates visual stimuli differing in numerosity. Learn Behav 31(2):133–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilner R, Johnstone RA (1997) Begging the question: are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of needs. Trends Ecol Evol 12(1):11–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitchen DM (2004) Alpha male black howler monkey responses to loud calls: effect of numeric odds, male companion behaviour and reproductive investment. Anim Behav 67:125–139. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kölliker M, Richner H, Werner I, Heeb P (1998) Begging signals and biparental care: nestling choice between parental feeding locations. Anim Behav 55:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kroodsma DE, Byers BE, Goodale E, Johnson S, Liu WC (2001) Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. Anim Behav 61:1029–1033. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krusche P, Uller C, Dicke U (2010) Quantity discrimination in salamanders. J Exp Biol 213(11):1822–1828. doi:10.1242/jeb.039297 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leonard ML, Horn AG (1998) Need and nestmates affect begging in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42(6):431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyon BE (2003) Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422:495–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacNair MR, Parker GA (1979) Models of parent-offspring conflict. III. Intra-brood conflict. Anim Behav 27:1202–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madden JR, Kunc HP, English S, Manser MB, Clutton-Brock TH (2009) Calling in the gap: competition or cooperation in littermates’ begging behaviour? P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 276(1660):1255–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marques PAM, Leonard ML, Horn AG, Contasti A (2011) How nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) integrate their responses to hunger and signalling by nestmates. Ethology 117(2):163–170. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01859.x CrossRefGoogle 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(2):379–387. doi:10.1006/anbe.1994.1052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McRae SB, Weatherhead PJ, Montgomerie R (1993) American robin nestlings compete by jockeying for position. Behav Ecol and Sociobiol 33(2):101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meck WH, Church RM (1983) A mode control model of counting and timing processes. J Exp Psychol Anim B 9(3):320–334. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.9.3.320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ostreiher R (2001) The importance of nestling location for obtaining food in open cup-nests. Behav Ecol and Sociobiol 49(5):340–347. doi:10.1007/s002650000308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price K, Harvey H, Ydenberg R (1996) Begging tactics of nestling yellow-headed blackbirds, Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus, in relation to need. Anim Behav 51:421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rayburn-Reeves RM, Miller HC, Zentall TR (2010) “Counting” by pigeons: discrimination of the number of biologically relevant sequential events. Learn Behav 38(2):169–176. doi:10.3758/lb.38.2.169 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roulin A (2002) The sibling negotiation hypothesis. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 107–127Google Scholar
  42. Roulin A (2004) Effects of hatching asynchrony on sibling negotiation, begging, jostling for position and within-brood food allocation in the barn owl, Tyto alba. Evol Ecol Res 6(7):1083–1098Google Scholar
  43. Roulin A, Kolliker M, Richner H (2000) Barn owl (Tyto alba) siblings vocally negotiate resources. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 267(1442):459–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roulin A, Dreiss AN, Fioravanti C, Bize P (2009) Vocal sib–sib interactions: how siblings adjust signalling level to each other. Anim Behav 77(3):717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2009) Arithmetic in newborn chicks. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 276(1666):2451–2460. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seddon N, Tobias JA (2003) Communal singing in the cooperatively breeding subdesert mesite Monias benschi: evidence of numerical assessment? J Avian Biol 34(1):72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith HG, Montgomerie R (1991) Nestling American Robins compete with siblings by begging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29(4):307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soler JJ, Aviles JM (2010) Sibling competition and conspicuousness of nestling gapes in altricial birds: a comparative study. Plos One 5 (5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010509
  49. Tanner CJ (2006) Numerical assessment affects aggression and competitive ability: a team-fighting strategy for the ant Formica xerophila. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 273(1602):2737–2742. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uller C, Jaeger R, Guidry G, Martin C (2003) Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian. Anim Cogn 6(2):105–112. doi:10.1007/s10071-003-0167-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Vonk J, Beran MJ (2012) Bears ‘count’ too: quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim Behav 84(1):231–238. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson ML, Hauser MD, Wrangham RW (2001) Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Anim Behav 61:1203–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xu F, Spelke ES (2000) Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition 74(1):B1–B11. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00066-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlène A. Ruppli
    • 1
  • Amélie N. Dreiss
    • 1
  • Alexandre Roulin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations