Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 152, Issue 3, pp 661–668 | Cite as

Vigilance patterns of wintering Eurasian Wigeon: female benefits from male low-cost behaviour

  • Steven J. PortugalEmail author
  • Matthieu Guillemain
Original Article

Abstract

Increased vigilance in male animals has been attributed to mate guarding (male investment hypothesis), to secondary sexual characteristics increasing predation risk (male constraint hypothesis) or for the benefit to the female (female benefits hypothesis). We studied Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope) while they grazed on dry land, a ‘risky’ foraging situation, at two points during the winter period (pre- and post-pair formation) to assess if their behaviour was more consistent with one of these three hypotheses. Males were always highly vigilant, and vigilance increased markedly in more risky situations (smaller groups, greater distance from water). Mean male vigilance only changed to a minor extent from the pre- to the post-mating periods. Conversely, female vigilance significantly decreased after pairing, and was then significantly lower than that of males. Prior to pairing, males and females had similar rates of vigilance bouts. Overall, our findings suggest that higher vigilance in male Wigeon in this instance is best explained by the female benefits hypothesis. Because the Wigeon were foraging on land and were highly vigilant, even when unpaired, the females could actually benefit from the males’ vigilance without males investing more time in vigilance. In such a situation, paired males rely on ‘low-cost vigilance’ whereby vigilance serves as a safety mechanism while simultaneously benefitting the female.

Keywords

Female benefit Mate guarding Male constraint Male investment Vigilance Anas penelope 

Zusammenfassung

Besonders hohe Wachsamkeit männlicher Tiere wird in der Regel mit einer von drei Hypothesen erklärt: dem Bewachen ihrer Weibchen (male investment hypothesis), als sekundäres Geschlechtsmerkmal verbunden mit erhöhtem Risiko, erbeutet zu werden (male constraint hypothesis), oder zum Nutzen der Weibchen (female benefits hypothesis). Wir untersuchten eurasische Pfeifenten (Anas penelope) beim Grasen auf trockenem Land, einer risikoreichen Art der Nahrungssuche. Die Beobachtungen fanden zu zwei Zeitpunkten während der Winterperiode (vor und nach der Paarbildung) statt, um zu prüfen, ob ihr Verhalten eine der drei Hypothesen speziell unterstützte. Die Männchen waren die ganze Zeit über sehr wachsam, und ihre Wachsamkeit stieg in risikoreichen Situationen (in kleineren Gruppen, oder weiter entfernt von Wasser) noch spürbar an. In der Zeit vor der Balz bis zu der Zeit danach stieg die mittlere Wachsamkeit der Männchen kaum an, während im Unterschied dazu die Wachsamkeit der Weibchen nach der Paarung deutlich nachließ und dann signifikant niedriger als die der Männchen war. Vor der Paarbildung zeigten Weibchen und Männchen ähnlich häufige Kurzphasen der Wachsamkeit. Unsere Untersuchungen legen nahe, dass im vorliegenden Fall die erhöhte Wachsamkeit männlicher Pfeifenten am besten von der „female benefits hypothesis” erklärt wird. Weil die Pfeifenten an Land auf Nahrungssuche gehen und dabei besonders im unverpaarten Stadium außerordentlich wachsam sind, konnten die Weibchen von der Wachsamkeit der Männchen profitieren, ohne dass diese Extra-Zeit dafür aufwenden mußten. Die verpaarten Männchen begnügen sich mit dieser Kosten-effizienten Wachsamkeit (low-cost vigilance), wobei diese als ein Sicherheitssystem dient, das gleichzeitig den Weibchen nutzt.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Nigel Brown for assistance during the planning of the fieldwork, and to David Gardiner for logistical support. Graham Martin, Jon Green and an anonymous referee provided useful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We are also grateful to the numerous students, particularly Tom Richardson, who assisted with fieldwork, and Claire Tyler and Craig White for useful discussions.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artis T, Martin K (1995) Male vigilance in white-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus: mate guarding or predator detection? Anim Behav 49:1249–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artiss T, Hochachka WM, Martin K (1999) Female foraging and male vigilance in white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus): opportunism or behavioural coordination? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldassarre GA, Bolen EG (2006) Waterfowl ecology and management. Wiley, New-YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Black JM (2005) Ecology of social behaviour. In: Kear J (ed) Ducks, geese and swans. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 57–67Google Scholar
  6. Bowler J (2005) Breeding strategies and biology. In: Kear J (ed) Ducks, geese and swans. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 68–111Google Scholar
  7. Choudhury S, Black JM (1993) Mate selection behaviour and sampling strategies in geese. Anim Behav 46:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen TJ (2000) Female pre-nesting foraging and male vigilance in common eider, Somateria mollissima. Bird Study 47:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chuang-Dobbs HC, Webster MS, Holmes RT (2001) The effectiveness of mate guarding by male black-throated blue warblers. Behav Ecol 12:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlgren J (1990) Females choose vigilant males: an experiment with the monogamous grey partridge, Perdix perdix. Anim Behav 39:646–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev 64:13–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gauthier G (1987) The adaptive significance of territorial behaviour in breeding buffleheads: a test of three hypotheses. Anim Behav 35:348–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodburn SF (1984) Mate guarding in the mallard, Anas platyrhynchos. Ornis Scand 15:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guillemain M, Martin GR, Fritz H (2002) Feeding methods, visual fields and vigilance in dabbling ducks (Anatidae). Funct Ecol 16:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guillemain M, Caldow RWG, Hodder KH, Goss-Custard JD (2003) Increased vigilance of paired males in sexually dimorphic species: distinguishing between alternate explanations in wintering Eurasian wigeon. Behav Ecol 14:130–135. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arg060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillemain M, Lepley M, Fritz H, Hecker N (2007a) Marsh harriers Circus aeruginosus target teals Anas crecca at roosts according to potential availability of vulnerable prey not total availability. Bird Study 54:268–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guillemain M, Arzel C, Legagneux P, Elmberg J, Fritz H, Pin C, Arnaud A, Massez G (2007b) Risky foraging leads to cost-free mate guarding in male teal, Anas crecca. J Ornithol 148:251–254. doi: 10.1007/s10336-006-0120-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guillemain M, Elmberg J, Arzel C, Johnson AR, Simon G (2008) The income-capital breeding dichotomy revisited: late winter body condition is related to breeding success in an income breeder. Ibis 150:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillemain M, Devineau O, Brochet AL, Fuster J, Fritz H, Green AJ, Gauthier-Clerc M (2010) What is the spatial unit for a wintering teal Anas crecca? Weekly day roost fidelity inferred from nasal saddles in the Camargue, southern France. Wildl Biol 16:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hario M, Hollmén TE (2004) The role of mate-guarding in pre-laying common eiders (Somateria mollisima) in the northern Baltic Sea. Ornis Fenn 81:119–127Google Scholar
  21. Hart PJ, Freed LA (2004) Predator avoidance as a function of flocking in the sexually dichromatic Hawaii akepa. Ethology 23:29–33Google Scholar
  22. Jacobsen OW, Ugelvik M (1994) Effects of waders on grazing and vigilance in breeding wigeon, Anas penelope. Anim Behav 47:488–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson WP, Rohwer FC (1998) Pairing chronology and agonistic behaviors of wintering green-winged teal and mallards. Wilson Bull 110:311–315Google Scholar
  24. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behavioural ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamprecht J (1989) Mate guarding in geese: awaiting female receptivity, protection of paternity or support of female feeding? In: Rasa AE, Vogel C, Voland E (eds) The socio-biology of sexual and reproductive strategies. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 48–60Google Scholar
  26. Larsen JK (1996) Wigeon Anas penelope offsetting dependence on water by feeding in mixed-species flocks: a natural experiment. Ibis 138:555–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lendrem DW (1983) Sleeping and vigilance in birds. l. Field observations of the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Anim Behav 31:532–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lercel BA, Kaminski RM, Cox RR (1999) Mate loss in winter affects reproduction of mallards. J.Wildl Manage 63:621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lima SL (2009) Predators and the breeding bird: behavioural and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev 84:485–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Back to the basics of antipredator vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Anim Behav 58:537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin K (1984) Reproductive defense priorities of male willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus)–enhancing mate survival or extending paternity options? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin K, Holt RF, Thomas DW (1993) Getting by on high: ecological energetics of arctic and alpine grouse. In: Carey C, Florant GL, Wunder BA, Horwitz B (eds) Life in the cold: ecological, physiological and molecular mechanisms. Westview, Boulder, pp 33–41Google Scholar
  33. Mayhew PW (1987) Vigilance levels in European Wigeon, Anas penelope - sexual differences. Wildfowl 38:77–81Google Scholar
  34. Mayhew PW (1988) . In: Harradine J (ed) Wigeon: current trends and future needs. British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Rossett, UK, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  35. Mayhew PW, Houston PW (1989) Feeding site selection by Eurasian wigeon, Anas penelope in relation to water. Ibis 131(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitchell C (1997) Re-mating in migratory wigeon Anas penelope. Ardea 85:275–277Google Scholar
  37. Oring LW, Sayler RD (1992) The mating systems of waterfowl. In: Batt BDJ, Afton AD, Anderson MG, Ankney CD, Johnson DH, Kadlec JA, Krapu GL (eds) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 190–213Google Scholar
  38. Pizzaro T (2003) Food, vigilance and sperm: The role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous game bird. Behav Ecol 14:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pradel R, Hines JE, Lebreton J-D, Nichols JD (1997) Capture-recapture survival models taking into account of transients. Biometrics 53:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quan RC, Cui LW, Wen XJ (2003) Sexual differences of paired ruddy shelduck in winter. Waterbirds 26:335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodway MS (2007a) Timing of pairing in waterfowl I: reviewing the data and extending the theory. Waterbirds 30:488–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodway MS (2007b) Timing of pairing in waterfowl II: testing the hypothesis with harlequin ducks. Waterbirds 30:506–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rohwer FC, Anderson MG (1988) Female-biased philopatry, monogamy, and the timing of pair formation in migratory waterfowl. In: Johnston RF (ed) Current Ornithology, vol 5. Plenum, New York, pp 187–221Google Scholar
  44. Squires KA, Martin K, Goudie RI (2007) Vigilance behaviour in the harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) during the preincubation period in Labrador: Are males vigilant for self or social partner? Auk 124:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  46. Struchbury BJM, Neudorf DL (1998) Female control, breeding synchrony, and the evolution of extra-pair mating systems. In: Parker PG, Burley NT (eds) Avian reproductive tactics: female and male perspectives, Ornithological monographs, no. 49. American Ornithological Union, Washington, DC, pp 103–123Google Scholar
  47. Thomas VG, Popko R (1981) Fat and protein reserves of wintering and prebreeding rock ptarmigan from south Hudson Bay. Can J Zool 59:1205–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiebe K, Martin K (1998) Age-specific patterns of reproduction in white-tailed and willow ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus and Lagopus lagopus. Ibis 140:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Ornithology, School of Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental SciencesThe University of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamUK
  2. 2.Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, CNERAArlesFrance

Personalised recommendations