Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1095–1103 | Cite as

The role of associative learning process on the response of fledgling great tits (Parus major) to mobbing calls

  • Mylène DutourEmail author
  • Jean-Paul Léna
  • Adeline Dumet
  • Vanessa Gardette
  • Nathalie Mondy
  • Thierry Lengagne
Original Paper

Abstract

When they detect a predator, many species emit anti-predator vocalizations. In some cases, they emit mobbing calls, which are associated with the caller approaching and harassing the predator while attracting others to join it. Surprisingly, although mobbing has been widely reported in adults of numerous species, there has been no test of the role of learning in mobbing call recognition, especially during ontogeny. Here, we exposed wild great tit (Parus major) nestlings to playbacks of an unthreatening novel sound either associated with conspecific mobbing calls (experimental treatment) or with another unthreatening novel sound (control treatment). We then tested them as nestlings and fledglings to see how they respond to the novel sound compared to conspecific mobbing calls. Results revealed that fledglings in the experimental treatment behaved similarly to conspecific mobbing calls and the novel sound associated with conspecific mobbing calls. Because mobbing efficiency is often linked to interspecific communication, associative learning should be used by heterospecifics as mobbing calls recognition mechanism. Regardless of treatment during the nestling phase, fledglings always were sensitive to the playback of conspecific mobbing calls. However, fledglings from the control group were more likely to approach the loudspeaker than those from the experimental group when mobbing calls were played suggesting that overexposure during the nestling phase altered mobbing learning. Overall, these results suggest that learning could play a role in the recognition of calls, like heterospecific mobbing calls, when paired with conspecific mobbing, and that mobbing is perceived as a threatening stimulus from a very young age.

Keywords

Alarm call Associative learning Birds Communication Mobbing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We warmly thank the “Fondation Pierre Vérots” (PVF) for giving us access to the field site. We are indebted to J.P. Rabatel (PVF) for his assistance. We express our gratitude to several students who assisted with the field work. We are grateful to Bernard Kaufmann for English corrections. We thank the editor, Christoph Randler, and anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by French Ministry of Research and Higher Education funding (to M.D. PhD grants 2015–2018).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Our work was carried out under permission from the Prefecture du Rhône (Ref. 2015-13), Prefecture de l’Ain (DDPP01-15-230) and with the approval of the ethics committee at Lyon 1 University, France (permit number: 2017012410184917). All authors are accredited for performing experiments with living animals (French diploma “Experimentation animale” first level for researchers). After ringing, all nestlings were readily accepted back by their parents.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1301_MOESM1_ESM.docx (161 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 161 kb)

References

  1. Barati A, McDonald PG (2017) Nestlings reduce their predation risk by attending to predator-information encoded within conspecific alarm calls. Sci Rep 7:11736.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11528-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  3. Brainard MS, Doupe AJ (2013) Translating birdsong: songbirds as a model for basic and applied medical research. Annu Rev Neurosci 36:489–517.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-152826 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson NV, Healy SD, Templeton CN (2017a) A comparative study of how British tits encode predator threat in their mobbing calls. Anim Behav 125:77–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson NV, Pargeter HM, Templeton CN (2017b) Sparrowhawk movement, calling, and presence of dead conspecifics differentially impact blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) vocal and behavioral mobbing responses. Behav Ecol Sociol 71:133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2361-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole EF, Cram DL, Quinn JL (2011) Individual variation in spontaneous problem-solving performance among wild great tits. Anim Behav 81:491–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creel S, Schuette P, Christianson D (2014) Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African ungulate community. Behav Ecol 25:773–784.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curio E (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Z Tierpsychol 48:175–183.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb00254.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978a) Cultural transmission of enemy recognition: one function of mobbing. Science 202:899–901.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb00255.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978b) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. II. Cultural transmission of enemy recognition in blackbirds: effectiveness and some constraints. Z Tierpsychol 48:184–202.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.202.4370.899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies NB, Brooke MD (1988) Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav 36:262–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80269-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies NB, Madden JR, Butchart SHM (2004) Learning fine-tunes a specific response of nestlings to the parental alarm calls of their own species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:2297–2304.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutour M, Lena JP, Lengagne T (2016) Mobbing behaviour varies according to predator dangerousness and occurrence. Anim Behav 119:119–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dutour M, Léna JP, Lengagne T (2017) Mobbing calls: a signal transcending species boundaries. Anim Behav 131:3–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutour M, Lengagne T, Léna JP (2019) Syntax manipulation changes perception of mobbing call sequences across passerine species. Ethology 125:635–644.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Exnerová A, Štys P, Fučíková E, Veselá S, Svádová K, Prokopová M et al (2006) Avoidance of aposematic prey in European tits (Paridae): learned or innate? Behav Ecol 18:148–156.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2011) Learning about non-predators and safe places: the forgotten elements of risk assessment. Anim Cogn 14:309–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0363-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Griesser M, Suzuki TN (2016) Kinship modulates the attention of naïve individuals to the mobbing behaviour of role models. Anim Behav 112:83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin AS, Galef BG Jr (2005) Social learning about predators: does timing matter? Anim Behav 69:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffin AS, Guillette LM, Healy SD (2015) Cognition and personality: an analysis of an emerging field. Trends Ecol Evol 30:207–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haff TM, Magrath RD (2012) Learning to listen? Nestling response to heterospecific alarm calls. Anim Behav 84:1401–1410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartley PHT (1950) An experimental analysis of interspecific recognition. Symp Soc Exp Biol 4:313–336Google Scholar
  23. Hauser MD (1988) How infant vervet monkeys learn to recognize starling alarm calls: the role of experience. Behaviour 105:187–201.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853988X00016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hollen LI, Radford AN (2009) The development of alarm call behaviour in mammals and birds. Anim Behav 78:791–800.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang P, Sieving KE, St Mary CM (2012) Heterospecific information about predation risk influences exploratory behavior. Behav Ecol 23:463–472.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Mono 54:187–211.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalb N, Anger F, Randler C (2019) Subtle variations in mobbing calls are predator-specific in great tits (Parus major). Sci Rep 9:6572.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43087-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kroodsma DE, Byers BE, Goodale E, Johnson S, Liu WC (2001) Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. Anim Behav 61:1029–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kullberg C, Lind J (2002) An experimental study of predator recognition in great tit fledglings. Ethology 108:429–441.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00786.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lendrem DW (1983) Predation risk and vigilance in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus). Behav Ecol Sociol 14:9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lind L, Jöngren F, Nilsson J, Schönberg Alm D, Strandmark A (2005) Information, predation risk and foraging decisions during mobbing in great tits Parus major. Orn Fennica 82:89–96Google Scholar
  32. Madden JR, Kilner RM, Davies NB (2005) Nestling responses to adult food and alarm calls: 1. Species specific responses in two cowbird hosts. Anim Behav 70:619–627.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magrath RD, Haff TM, Horn AG, Leonard ML (2010) Calling in the face of danger: how predation risk affects acoustic communication by parent birds and their offspring. Adv Stud Behav 41:187–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(10)41006-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magrath RD, Haff TM, McLachlan JR, Igic B (2015a) Wild birds learn to eavesdrop on heterospecific alarm calls. Curr Biol 25:2047–2050.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Magrath RD, Haff TM, Fallow PM, Radford AN (2015b) Eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: from mechanisms to consequences. Biol Rev 90:560–586.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maloney RF, McLean IG (1995) Historical and experimental learned predator recognition in free-living New Zealand robins. Anim Behav 50:1193–1201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80036-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marler P (1957) Specific distinctiveness in the communication signals of birds. Behaviour 11:13–38.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853956X00066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McIvor GE, Lee VE, Thornton A (2018) Testing social learning of anti-predator responses in juvenile jackdaws: the importance of accounting for levels of agitation. R Soc Open Sci 5:171571.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171571 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. McLean IG, Hoelzer C, Studholme BJS (1999) Teaching predator-recognition to a naive bird: implications for management. Biol Conserv 87:123–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00024-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morand-Ferron J, Hamblin S, Cole EF, Aplin LM, Quinn JL (2015) Taking the operant paradigm into the field: associative learning in wild great tits. PLoS One 10:e0133821.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133821 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Perrins CM (1965) Population fluctuations and clutch-size in the Great Tit, Parus major L. J Anim Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Platzen D, Magrath RD (2004) Parental alarm calls suppress nestling vocalization. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1271–1276.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Potvin DA, Ratnayake CP, Radford AN, Magrath RD (2018) Birds learn socially to recognize heterospecific alarm calls by acoustic association. CurR Biol 28:2632–2637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Randler C (2012) A possible phylogenetically conserved urgency response of great tits (Parus major) towards allopatric mobbing calls. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:675–681.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1315-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rydén O (1978) Differential responsiveness of great tit nestlings, Parus major, to natural auditory stimuli. Ethology 47:236–253.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01834.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rydén O (1980) Heart rate response in great tit nestlings (Parus major) to an alarm call. J Comp Physiol Psychol 94:426.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077680 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaller GB, Emlen JT (1961) The development of visual discrimination patterns in the crouching reactions of nestling grackles. Auk 73:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Shriner WM (1999) Antipredator responses to a previously neutral sound by free-living adult golden-mantled ground squirrels, Spermophilus lateralis (Sciuridae). Ethology 105:747–757.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.1999.00454.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suzuki TN (2011) Parental alarm calls warn nestlings about different predatory threats. Curr Biol 21:R15–R16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Suzuki TN (2012) Referential mobbing calls elicit different predator-searching behaviours in Japanese great tits. Anim Behav 84(1):53–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suzuki TN, Wheatcroft D, Griesser M (2016) Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls. Nat Commun 7:10986.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10986 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Suzuki TN, Wheatcroft D, Griesser M (2017) Wild birds use an ordering rule to decode novel call sequences. Curr Biol 27:2331–2336.  https://doi.org/10.17632/r7v96zf5pp.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Tchernichovski O, Lints T, Mitra PP, Nottebohm F (1999) Vocal imitation in zebra finches is inversely related to model abundance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:12901–12904.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.22.12901 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wheatcroft D (2015) Repetition rate of calls used in multiple contexts communicates presence of predators to nestlings and adult birds. Anim Behav 103:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wheatcroft D, Price TD (2013) Learning and signal copying facilitate communication among bird species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 280:20123070.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.3070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wheeler BC, Fahy M, Tiddi B (2019) Experimental evidence for heterospecific alarm signal recognition via associative learning in wild capuchin monkeys. Anim Cogn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01264-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lyon, UMR5023 Ecologie des Hydrosystèmes Naturels et Anthropisés, Université Lyon 1, ENTPE, CNRSVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations