Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 150, Issue 3, pp 569–576 | Cite as

Adjustment of incubation according to the threat posed: a further signal of enemy recognition in the Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla?

  • Milica Požgayová
  • Petr Procházka
  • Marcel Honza
Original Article

Abstract

Nest predation and brood parasitism are costly for nest owners, and natural selection should therefore favour the evolution of parental counterdefences. We addressed the question of whether Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla change their incubation behaviour in response to various nest intruders and whether this adjustment matches the intensity of mobbing exhibited towards these intruders. Near focal nests, we successively exposed a dummy of a brood parasite, nest predator and an innocuous species. After the parents had responded, we removed the dummy and filmed their incubation. The most aggressive response towards the Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus and high nest attendance after its disappearance indicated recognition of the brood parasite. Low-intensity response to the Jay Garrulus glandarius, together with reduced subsequent parental care, suggested that Blackcaps perceived it either as less deleterious at the egg stage than the Cuckoo or as a danger to themselves. Almost no aggression towards the Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur, along with the resumption of incubation after its removal, implied that Blackcaps recognised it as harmless. In addition, we found that the level of aggression positively correlated with nest attendance, suggesting a link between the intensity of mobbing and subsequent parental care. Altogether, our results demonstrate that the issue of enemy recognition may be viewed as a complex of both aggressive and post-presentation behaviours.

Keywords

Aggression Brood parasitism Nest attendance Nest defence Nest predation 

References

  1. Arcese P, Smith JNM (1988) Effects of population density and supplemental food on reproduction in song sparrows. J Anim Ecol 57:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bairlein F (1978) Über die Biologie einer südwestdeutschen Population der Mönchsgrasmücke (Sylvia atricapilla). J Ornithol 118:14–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks AJ, Martin TE (2001) Host activity and the risk of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Behav Ecol 12:31–40Google Scholar
  4. Barabás L, Gilicze B, Takasu F, Moskát C (2004) Survival and anti-parasite defense in a host metapopulation under heavy brood parasitism: a source-sink dynamic model. J Ethol 22:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bártol I, Karcza Z, Moskát C, Røskaft E, Kisbenedek T (2002) Responses of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus to experimental brood parasitism: the effects of a cuckoo Cuculus canorus dummy and egg mimicry. J Avian Biol 33:420–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benecke HG (1982) Zur Bedeutung verschiedener Wirtsvogelarten für die Reproduktion des Kuckucks in der DDR. Falke 29:153–155Google Scholar
  7. Berthold P, Fiedler W, Querner U (1995) Die Mönchsgrasmücke (Sylvia atricapilla) als Kuckucks (Cuculus canorus)-Wirt. Charadrius 31:11–17Google Scholar
  8. Bureš S, Pavel V (2003) Do birds behave in order to avoid disclosing their nest site? Bird Study 50:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clotfelter ED, Yasukawa K (1999) Impact of brood parasitism of brown-headed cowbirds on red-winged blackbird reproductive success. Condor 101:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramp S (1992) The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol VI. Warblers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Dale S, Gustavsen R, Slagsvold T (1996) Risk taking during parental care: a test of three hypotheses applied to the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies NB, Butchart SHM, Burke TA, Chaline N, Stewart IRK (2003) Reed warblers guard against cuckoos and cuckoldry. Anim Behav 65:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duckworth JW (1991) Responses of breeding reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus to mounts of sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, cuckoo Cuculus canorus and jay Garrulus glandarius. Ibis 133:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher RJ, Poulin RG, Todd LD, Brigham RM (2004) Nest stage, wind speed, and air temperature affect the nest defence behaviours of burrowing owls. Can J Zool 82:707–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gärtner K (1981) Das Wegnehmen von Wirtsvogeleiern durch den Kuckuck (Cuculus canorus). Ornithol Mitt 33:115–131Google Scholar
  16. Gill SA, Sealy SG (1996) Nest defence by yellow warblers: recognition of a brood parasite and an avian nest predator. Behaviour 133:263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gill SA, Grieef PM, Staib LM, Sealy SG (1997) Does nest defence deter or facilitate cowbird parasitism? A test of the nesting-cue hypothesis. Ethology 103:56–71Google Scholar
  18. Grim T (2005) Host recognition of brood parasites: implications for methodology in studies of enemy recognition. Auk 122:530–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobson KA, Sealy SG (1989) Responses of yellow warblers to the threat of cowbird parasitism. Anim Behav 38:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogstad O (2005) Sex-differences in nest defence in fieldfares Turdus pilaris in relation to their size and physical condition. Ibis 147:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollander FA, Van Overveld T, Tokka I, Matthysen E (2008) Personality and nest defence in the great tit (Parus major). Ethology 114:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Honza M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Stokke B (2001) How are different common cuckoo Cuculus canorus morphs maintained? An evaluation of different hypotheses. Ardea 89:341–352Google Scholar
  23. Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2002) Behaviour of female common cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during egg laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav 64:861–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honza M, Grim T, Čapek M, Moksnes A, Røskaft E (2004a) Nest defence, enemy recognition and nest inspection behaviour of experimentally parasitized reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. Bird Study 51:256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Honza M, Procházka P, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Čapek M, Mrlík V (2004b) Are blackcaps current winners in the evolutionary struggle against the common cuckoo? J Ethol 22:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honza M, Požgayová M, Procházka P, Tkadlec E (2007) Consistency in egg rejection behaviour: responses to repeated brood parasitism in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla). Ethology 113:344–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight RL, Temple SA (1986) Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the nesting cycle? Auk 103:318–327Google Scholar
  28. Komdeur J, Kats RKH (1999) Predation risk affects trade-off between nest guarding and foraging in Seychelles warblers. Behav Ecol 10:648–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2007) Long-lasting mobbing of the pied flycatcher increases the risk of nest predation. Behav Ecol 18:1082–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovászi P, Moskát C (2004) Break-down of arm race between the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) and the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). Behaviour 141:245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin TE, Scott J, Menge C (2000) Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2287–2293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLean IG (1987) Response to a dangerous enemy: should a brood parasite be mobbed? Ethology 75:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLean IG, Rhodes G (1991) Enemy recognition and responses in birds. Curr Ornithol 8:173–211Google Scholar
  34. Mermoz ME, Fernández GJ (1999) Low frequency of shiny cowbird parasitism on scarlet-headed blackbirds: anti-parasite adaptations or nonspecific host life-history traits? J Avian Biol 30:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1992) Responses of some rare cuckoo hosts to mimetic model cuckoo eggs and to foreign conspecific eggs. Ornis Scand 23:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moksnes A, Røskaft E (1995) Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): an analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. J Zool 236:625–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT, Korsnes L, Lampe HM, Pedersen HC (1991) Behavioural responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour 116:64–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Korsnes L (1993) Rejection of cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs by meadow pipits (Anthus pratensis). Behav Ecol 4:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Hagen LG, Honza M, Mørk C, Olsen PH (2000) Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis 142:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risk and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nealen PM, Breitwisch R (1997) Northern cardinal sexes defend nests equally. Wilson Bull 109:269–278Google Scholar
  42. Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Honza M (1998) Costs of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism to reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. J Avian Biol 29:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pavel V (2006) When do altricial birds reach maximum of their brood defence intensity? J Ethol 24:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pavel V, Bureš S (2001) Offspring age and nest defence: test of the feedback hypothesis in the meadow pipit. Anim Behav 61:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Remeš V (2003) Effects of exotic habitat on nesting success, territory density, and settlement patterns in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla). Conserv Biol 17:1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ricklefs RE (2000) Density dependence, evolutionary optimization, and the diversification of avian life histories. Condor 102:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Bičík V, Moskát C (2002) Aggression to dummy cuckoos by potential European cuckoo hosts. Behaviour 139:613–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothstein SI (1990) A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:481–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rothstein SI (2001) Relic behaviours, coevolution and the retention versus loss of host defences after episodes of avian brood parasitism. Anim Behav 61:95–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rytkönen S, Orell M, Koivula K (1993) Sex-role reversal in willow tit nest defense. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schaefer T (2004) Video monitoring of shrub-nests reveals nest predators. Bird Study 51:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmidt KA, Whelan C (1999) The relative impacts of nest predation and brood parasitism on seasonal fecundity in songbirds. Conserv Biol 13:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sealy SG, Neudorf DL (1995) Male northern orioles eject cowbird eggs: implications for the evolution of rejection behavior. Condor 97:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith JNM, Arcese P, McLean IG (1984) Age, experience, and enemy recognition by wild song sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Møller AP (1995) Magpie host manipulation by great spotted cuckoos: evidence for an avian mafia? Evolution 49:770–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sordahl TA (1990) The risks of avian mobbing and distraction behavior: an anecdotal review. Wilson Bull 102:349–352Google Scholar
  57. Uyehara JC, Narins PM (1995) Nest defense by willow flycatchers to brood-parasitic intruders. Condor 97:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weidinger K (2000) The breeding performance of blackcap Sylvia atricapilla in two types of forest habitat. Ardea 88:225–233Google Scholar
  59. Weidinger K (2006) Validating the use of temperature data loggers to measure survival of songbird nests. J Field Ornithol 77:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milica Požgayová
    • 1
    • 2
  • Petr Procházka
    • 1
  • Marcel Honza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Avian EcologyInstitute of Vertebrate Biology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i.BrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations