Advertisement

acta ethologica

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 127–134 | Cite as

Linking anti-predator behaviour and habitat quality: group effect in nest defence of a passerine bird

  • Tatjana Krama
  • Arnis Bērziņš
  • Seppo Rytkönen
  • Markus J. Rantala
  • David Wheatcroft
  • Indrikis Krams
Article

Abstract

In habitats where the density of breeding individuals is higher, breeding success has been shown to increase with the number of close conspecific and heterospecific neighbours. However, the mechanisms linking habitat quality, group size of prey individuals and offspring defence are poorly known. In this field study, we examined the relationships between habitat quality and parental nest defence behaviour in the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca). We found that mobbing is more intense in unmanaged forests where birds breed in more dense and diverse communities than in heavily managed young forests where heterospecific densities are lower. We also found that the mobbing activities of pied flycatchers breeding in unmanaged mature boreal forests attracted more neighbouring prey individuals than in nearby managed forests. This study shows that habitat quality-mediated effects might be responsible for the decreased group size of mobbing birds in managed forests, which may lead to less effective communal defence.

Keywords

Anti-predator behaviour Group effect Cooperation Nest defence Ficedula hypoleuca Habitat quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Gary Ramey, Mikus Āboliņš-Ābols, Milica Požgayová and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the manuscript. We also thank Kristine Igaune for field assistance and Jolanta Vrublevska for her help with figures and the text. Funding for this project was provided by the Science Council of Latvia (09.1186 to T.K. and 07.2100 to I.K.) and the Academy of Finland (to M.J.R. and I.K.). The experiments comply with the current laws of the Republic of Latvia, and the study was approved by the Science Council of the Republic of Latvia.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A (1984) Density-dependence in breeding success of the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca). J Anim Ecol 53:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amar A, Amidon F, Arroyo B, Esselstyn JA, Marshall AP (2008) Population trends of the forest bird community on the Pacific island of Rota, Mariana Islands. Condor 110:421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M, Wiklund CG, Rundgren H (1980) Parental defence of offspring: a model and an example. Anim Behav 28:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson M, Wallander J, Isaksson D (2008) Predator perches: a visual search perspective. Funct Ecol 23:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bautista LM, Lane SJ (2000) Coal tits increase evening body mass in response to tawny owl calls. Acta Ethol 2:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp G (2008) What is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance? Behav Ecol 19:1361–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker P (1984) Tageszeitliche steigerung der feindabwehr der flussseeschwalbe (Sterna hirundo). Z Tierpsychol 66:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg Å, Lindberg T, Källebrink KG (1992) Hatching success of lapwings on farmland: differences between habitats and colonies of different sizes. J Anim Ecol 61:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein DT (2007) The evolution, function, and meaning of marmot alarm communication. Adv Study Behav 37:371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogliani G, Sergio F, Tavecchia G (1999) Woodpigeons nesting in association with hobby falcons: advantages and choice rules. Anim Behav 57:125–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Cresswell W (1994) Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 47:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creutz G (1955) Der trauersnäpper (Muscicapa hypoleuca Pallas). Eine populationsstudie. J Ornithol 96:241–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curio E (1959) Verhaltensstudien am trauerschnäpper. Beiträge zur ethologie und ökologie von Muscicapa h. hypoleuca Pallas. P. Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Curio E (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Z Tierpsychol 48:175–183Google Scholar
  16. Curio E (1987) Brood defence in the great tit: the influence of age, number and quality of young. Ardea 75:35–42Google Scholar
  17. Curio E, Regelmann K (1985) The behavioural dynamics of great tits (Parus major) approaching a predator. Z Tierpsychol 69:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/
  19. Driver PM, Humphries DA (1988) Protean behaviour: the biology of unpredictability. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc B—Biol Sci 249:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eggers S, Griesser M, Ekman J (2008) Predator-induced reductions in nest visitation rates are modified by forest cover and food availability. Behav Ecol 19:1056–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekman J (1987) Exposure and time use in willow tit flocks: the cost of subordination. Anim Behav 35:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ekman J (1989) Ecology of non-breeding social systems of Parus. Wilson Bull 101:263–288Google Scholar
  24. Ficken MS, Popp J (1996) A comparative analysis of passerine mobbing calls. Auk 113:370–380Google Scholar
  25. Flasskamp A (1994) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. 5. An experimental test of the move on hypothesis. Ethology 96:322–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Inkeröinen J (1998a) Heterospecific attraction and food resources in migrants’ breeding patch selection in northern boreal forest. Oecologia 115:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Inkeröinen J, Reunanen P (1998b) Aggregate dispersion of birds after encountering a predator: experimental evidence. J Avian Biol 29:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forsman et al (2002) Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a potential competitor. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 269:1619–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuchs E (1977) Predation and anti-predator behaviour in a mixed colony of terns Sterna sp. and black-headed gulls Larus ridibundus with special reference to the sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis. Ornis Scand 8:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gil-Tena A, Brotons L, Saura S (2009) Mediterranean forest dynamics and forest bird distribution changes in the late 20th century. Glob Change Biol 15:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glue DE (1972) Bird prey taken by British owls. Bird Study 19:91–96Google Scholar
  32. Godin J-GJ, Classon LJ, Abrahams MV (1988) Group vigilance and shoal size in a small characin fish. Behaviour 104:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Götmark F, Andersson M (1984) Colonial breeding reduces nest predation in the common gull (Larus canus). Anim Behav 32:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graw B, Manser MB (2007) The function of mobbing in cooperative meerkats. Anim Behav 74:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Griesser M (2009) Mobbing calls signal predator category in a kin group-living bird species. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 276:2887–2892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Griesser M, Ekman J (2005) Nepotistic mobbing behaviour in the Siberian jay, Perisoreus infaustus. Anim Behav 69:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grim T (2008) Are blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) defending their nests also calling for help from their neighbours? J Ornithol 149:169–180Google Scholar
  38. Haas V (1985) Colonial and single breeding in fieldfares, Turdus pilaris: a comparison of nesting success in early and late broods. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hein RG (1996) Mobbing behavior in juvenile French grunts (Haemulon flavolineatum). Copeia 1996:989–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hendrichsen KD, Christiansen PK, Nielsen E, Dabelsteen T, Sunde P (2006) Exposure affects the risk of an owl being mobbed—experimental evidence. J Avian Biol 37:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoogland JL, Sherman PW (1976) Advantages and disadvantages of bank swallow (Riparia riparia) coloniality. Ecol Monogr 46:33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnsson K (1994) Colonial breeding and nest predation in the jackdaw Corvus monedula using old black woodpecker Dryocopus martius holes. Ibis 136:313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ken T, Hepburn HR, Radloff SE, Yusheng Y, Yiqiu L, Danyin Z, Neumann P (2005) Heat-balling wasps by honeybees. Naturwissenschaften 92:492–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kilgas P, Tilgar V, Mänd R (2006) Hematological health state indices predict local survival in a small passerine bird, the great tit (Parus major). Physiol Biochem Zool 79:565–572Google Scholar
  46. Kilgas P, Tilgar V, Mägi M, Mänd R (2007) Physiological condition of incubating and brood rearing female Great Tits Parus major in two contrasting habitats. Acta Ornithol 42:129–136Google Scholar
  47. Knight RL, Temple SA (1986) Methodological problems in studies of avian nest defence. Anim Behav 34:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krama T, Krams I (2005) Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 16:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krams I (1996) Predation risk and shifts of foraging sites in mixed willow and crested tit flocks. J Avian Biol 27:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krams I (2000) Length of feeding day and body weight of great tits in a single- and a two-predator environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:147–153Google Scholar
  51. Krams I (2001) Seeing without being seen: a removal experiment with mixed flocks of willow and crested tits Parus montanus and cristatus. Ibis 143:476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krams I, Krama T (2002) Interspecific reciprocity explains mobbing behaviour of the breeding chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 269:2345–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K (2006) Mobbing behaviour: reciprocity-based co-operation in breeding pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Ibis 148:50–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mand R (2007) Long-lasting mobbing of the pied flycatcher increases the risk of nest predation. Behav Ecol 18:1082–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mand R (2008) Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krams I, Berzins A, Krama T (2009) Group effect in nest defence behaviour of breeding pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 77:513–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Krams I, Berzins A, Krama T, Wheatcroft D, Igaune K, Rantala MJ (2010a) The increased risk of predation enhances cooperation. Proc R Soc B—Biol Sci 277:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krams I, Berzins A, Krama T, Wheatcroft D, Igaune K, Rantala MJ (2010b) The risk of predation enhances cooperation among prey individuals in a songbird. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 277:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Kronitis J (1972) Mezkopja rokasgramata. Liesma, RigaGoogle Scholar
  61. Kullberg C (1995) Strategy of the pygmy owl while hunting avian and mammalian prey. Ornis Fenn 72:72–78Google Scholar
  62. Lambrechts MM, Prieur B, Caizergues A, Dehorter O, Galan M-J, Perret P (2000) Risk-taking restraints in a bird with reduced eggs hatching success. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 267:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lima SL (2009) Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev 84:485–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lindström ER, Brainerd S, Helldin JO, Overskaug K (1995) Pine marten—red fox interactions: a case of intraguild predation? Ann Zool Fenn 32:23–130Google Scholar
  65. Listoen C, Karlsen RF, Slagsvold T (2000) Risk taking during parental care: a test of the harm-to-offspring hypothesis. Behav Ecol 11:40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ludwig T, Storch I, Graf R (2009) Historic landscape change and habitat loss: the case of black grouse in Lower Saxony, Germany. Landsc Ecol 24:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1992) The pied flycatcher. T. and A.D. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. McLean IG, Rhodes G (1991) Enemy recognition and response in birds. Curr Ornith 8:173–211Google Scholar
  69. Mikkola H (1983) Owls of Europe. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Niemi G, Montgomery K (1997) Heterospecific attraction affects community structure and migrant abundances in northern breeding bird communities. Can J Zool 75:2077–2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Munn CA, Terborgh J (1979) Multispecies territoriality in neotropical foraging flocks. Condor 81:338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nocera J, Taylor P, Ratcliffe L (2008) Inspection of mob-calls as sources of predator information: response of migrant and resident birds in the Neotropics. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1769–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nolen MT, Lucas JR (2009) Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice. Anim Behav 77:1137–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Olendorf R, Getty T, Scribner K (2004) Cooperative nest defence in red-winged blackbirds: reciprocal altruism, kinship or by-product mutualism? Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 271:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Palestis BG (2009) Nesting stage and nest defense by common terns. Waterbirds 28:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Patterson IJ (1965) Timing and spacing of broods in the black-headed gull Larus ridibundus. Ibis 107:433–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pavey CR, Smyth AK (1998) Effects of avian mobbing on roost use and diet of powerful owls, Ninox strenua. Anim Behav 55:313–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pettifor RA (1990) The effects of avian mobbing on a potential predator, the European kestrel, Falco tinnunculus. Anim Behav 39:821–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Robinson SK (1985) Coloniality in the yellow-rumped cacique (Cacicus cela) as a defense against nest predators. Auk 102:506–519Google Scholar
  82. Schmiegelow FKA, Mönkkönen M (2002) Habitat loss and fragmentation in dynamic landscapes: avian perspectives from the boreal forest. Ecol Appl 12:375–389Google Scholar
  83. Schultz ME, De Santo TL (2006) Comparison of terrestrial invertebrate biomass and richness in young mixed red alder-conifer, young conifer, and old conifer stands of southeast Alaska. Northwest Sci 80:120–132Google Scholar
  84. Seppänen J-T, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Krams I, Salmi T (2011) New behavioural trait adopted or rejected by observing heterospecific tutor fitness. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 278:1736–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shalter MD (1978) Effect of spatial context on the mobbing behaviour of pied flycatchers to a predator model. Anim Behav 26:1219–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Siffczyk C, Brotons L, Kangas K, Orell M (2003) Home range size of willow tits: a response to winter habitat loss. Oecologia 136:635–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Solórzano-Filho JA (2006) Mobbing of Leopardus wiedii while hunting by a group of Sciurus ingrami in an Araucaria forest of Southeast Brazil. Mammalia 70:156–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Virkkala R, Rajasärkkä A (2006) Spatial variation of bird species in landscapes dominated by old-growth forests in Northern Boreal Finland. Biodiv Conserv 15:2143–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Welbergen JA, Davies NB (2008) Reed warblers discriminate cuckoos from sparrowhawks with graded alarm signals that attract mates and neighbours. Anim Behav 76:811–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Welbergen JA, Davies NB (2009) Strategic variation in mobbing as a front line of defense against brood parasitism. Curr Biol 19:235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wiklund CG, Andersson M (1994) Natural selection of colony size in a passerine bird. J Anim Ecol 63:765–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatjana Krama
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arnis Bērziņš
    • 1
  • Seppo Rytkönen
    • 5
  • Markus J. Rantala
    • 3
  • David Wheatcroft
    • 4
  • Indrikis Krams
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Systematic BiologyUniversity of DaugavpilsDaugavpilsLatvia
  2. 2.Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Committee on Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations