Advertisement

Parent-absent begging and the risk of nest predation

  • Václav Jelínek
  • Michal Šulc
  • Karel Weidinger
  • Marcel Honza
Original Article

Abstract

Despite the fact that parent-absent begging (PAB) has been studied as a communication tool during competition between nestlings for food or as a signal of need, its role in nest predation has been poorly investigated. In this study we examined whether the natural level of Common Cuckoo (hereafter “Cuckoo”) PAB increases the risk of artificial nest predation (n = 48) by using three types of experimental playback of parent-present begging (PPB) which differ in the presence or absence of additional PPB, PAB or periods of silence. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find a significant difference in daily survival rates between PPB + PAB vs. PPB + PPB nests or between PPB + PAB vs. PPB + silence nests, indicating that the natural level of Cuckoo PAB did not influence nest vulnerability to predation. Moreover, we did not find a significant difference between nests with any of the types of playback and completely silent control nests, suggesting that not only PAB, but also begging behaviour itself, does not present an important predation cost for nestlings, at least not in cases when nestlings beg at the natural level used in our experiment. As we filmed all experimental nests during their exposure to predators, we were able to show that eight of 20 filmed nest-predation events were caused by predators that never or rarely predate upon passerine nests. Excluding predation events by these unlikely predators, however, did not change our original results. Nonetheless, we advocate direct identification of nest predators to strengthen the interpretation of future studies on the predation cost of begging.

Keywords

Acoustic solicitation Begging loudness Begging frequency Common Cuckoo Nest predator Nest survival 

Zusammenfassung

Bettelverhalten in Abwesenheit der Eltern und das Nestprädationsrisiko

Trotz der Tatsache, dass Bettelverhalten in Abwesenheit der Elternvögel (engl.: parent-absent begging, PAB) als Kommunikationsmittel im Wettstreit der Nestlinge um die Nahrung oder als Anzeigen eines Bedürfnisses untersucht wurde, ist dessen Bedeutung für die Nestprädation kaum erforscht. Anhand von Playbackversuchen mit Bettelrufen in Anwesenheit der Elternvögel (engl.: parent-present begging, PPB), welche sich durch das Vorhandensein beziehungsweise Fehlen zusätzlicher PPB, PAB oder Stille unterschieden, untersuchten wir, ob das natürliche Ausmaß an PAB bei Kuckucken das Risiko künstlicher Nestprädation (n = 48) erhöht. Anders als erwartet stellten wir keinen signifikanten Unterschied in den täglichen Überlebensraten (engl.: daily survival rates, DSR) zwischen Nestern mit PPB + PAB und PPB + PPB beziehungsweise solchen mit PPB + PAB und PPB + Stille fest, was ein Zeichen dafür ist, dass das natürliche Ausmaß von PAB bei Kuckucken die Prädationsanfälligkeit der Nester nicht beeinflusste. Des Weiteren gab es keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen Nestern mit jeglicher Form von Playback und den völlig lautlosen Kontrollnestern, was darauf hindeutet, dass weder das PAB noch das Bettelverhalten an sich für die Nestlinge einen deutlichen Prädationskostenfaktor darstellt, wenn sie in dem in unserem Versuch verwendeten natürlichen Ausmaß betteln. Da alle Versuchsnester während der Experimente gefilmt wurden, konnten wir zeigen, dass acht der 20 gefilmten Nestraubereignisse durch Prädatoren verursacht wurden, welche selten oder nie Singvogelnester prädieren. Der Ausschluss der Prädationsereignisse durch diese untypischen Prädatoren änderte unsere Originalergebnisse jedoch nicht. Nichtsdestotrotz raten wir bei zukünftigen Studien zu den durch Prädation verursachten Kosten des Bettelverhaltens wegen der besseren Untermauerung der Interpretation zur direkten Bestimmung von Nesträubern.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Petr Procházka, Milica Požgayová, Mirek Čapek and Klára Žabková for their assistance in the field; Klára Žabková and Marián Polák for their help with preparation of the recordings for analyis and Fig. 1; Tereza Karasová for Cuckoo loudness data; Alfréd Trnka for providing Greenfinch and Linnet eggs, and Marek Mihai Abraham for data on the frequency of both types of Cuckoo begging. We are also grateful to the managers of the Hodonín Fish Farm for permission to conduct the fieldwork on their grounds, and to the managers of Lesy ČR, S. P. Department Strážnice for permission to enter the woods by car. This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant number GACR 17-12262S).

Supplementary material

10336_2018_1608_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 11 kb)

References

  1. Abraham MM, Požgayová M, Procházka P, Piálková R, Honza M (2015) Is there a sex-specific difference between parasitic chicks in begging behaviour? J Ethol 33:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolker BM (2015) Linear and generalized linear mixed models. In: Fox GA, Negrete-Yankelevich S, Sosa VJ (eds) Ecological statistics: contemporary theory and application. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 309–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budden AE, Wright J (2001) Falling on deaf ears: the adaptive significance of begging in the absence of a parent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulmer E, Celis P, Gil D (2008) Parent-absent begging: evidence for sibling honesty and cooperation in the Spotless Starling (Sturnus unicolor). Behav Ecol 19:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chappell MA, Bachman GC (2002) Energetic costs of begging behaviour. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coates PS, Connelly JW, Delehanty DJ (2008) Predators of Greater Sage-grouse nests identified by video monitoring. J Field Ornithol 79:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colombelli-Négrel D, Hauber ME, Robertson J, Sulloway FJ, Hoi H, Griggio M, Kleindorfer S (2012) Embryonic learning of vocal passwords in Superb Fairy-wrens reveals intruder cuckoo nestlings. Curr Biol 22:2155–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colombelli-Négrel D, Hauber ME, Kleindorfer S (2014) Parental learning in an Australian songbird: habituation and individual discrimination in Superb Fairy-wren embryos. Proc R Soc Lond B 281:20141154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colombelli-Négrel D, Webster MS, Dowling JL, Hauber ME, Kleindorfer S (2016) Vocal imitation of mother’s calls by begging Red-backed Fairywren nestlings increases parental provisioning. Auk 133:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB (2000) Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies NB, Kilner RM, Noble DG (1998) Nestling cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, exploit hosts with begging calls that mimic a brood. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:673–678CrossRefGoogle 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 271:2297–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies NB, Madden JR, Butchart SHM, Rutila J (2006) A host-race of the Cuckoo Cuculus canorus with nestlings attuned to the parental alarm calls of the host species. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:693–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dearborn DC (1999) Brown-headed Cowbird nestling vocalizations and risk of nest predation. Auk 116:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickens M, Hartley IR (2007) Stimuli for nestling begging in Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus: hungry nestlings are less discriminating. J Avian Biol 38:421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dor R, Kedar H, Winkler DW, Lotem A (2006) Begging in the absence of parents: a “quick on the trigger” strategy to minimize costly misses. Behav Ecol 18:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friesen LE, Casbourn G, Martin V, Mackay RJ (2013) Nest predation in an anthropogenic landscape. Wilson J Ornithol 125:562–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfray HCJ (1991) Signalling of need by offspring to their parents. Nature 352:328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guppy M, Guppy S, Marchant R, Priddel D, Carlile N, Fullagar P (2017) Nest predation of woodland birds in south-east Australia: importance of unexpected predators. Emu 117:92–96Google Scholar
  20. Haff TM, Magrath RD (2010) Vulnerable but not helpless: nestlings are fine-tuned to cues of approaching danger. Anim Behav 79:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haff TM, Magrath RD (2011) Calling at a cost: elevated nestling calling attracts predators to active nests. Biol Lett 7:493–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haff TM, Magrath RD (2012) Learning to listen? Nestling response to heterospecific alarm calls. Anim Behav 84:1401–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haskell D (1994) Experimental evidence that nestling begging behaviour incurs a cost due to nest predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haskell D (1999) The effect of predation on begging-call evolution in nestling Wood Warblers. Anim Behav 57:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haskell D (2002) Begging behaviour and nest predation. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honza M, Pořgayová M, Petrželková A, Procházka P (2018) Does host-absent vocalisation of Common Cuckoo chicks increase hosts’ food provisioning behaviour? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jelínek V, Procházka P, Požgayová M, Honza M (2014) Common Cuckoos Cuculus canorus change their nest-searching strategy according to the number of available host nests. Ibis 156:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jelínek V, Karasová T, Weidinger K, Procházka P, Honza M (2016) Do Common Cuckoo chicks suffer nest predation more than host nestlings? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1975–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jimeno B, Muriel J, Pérez-Rodríguez L, Gil D (2014) Sexual differences in parental investment in response to parent-absent calls. Ethology 120:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson RA, Godfrey HCJ (2002) Models of begging as a signal of need. In: Wright J, Leonard ML (eds) The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 163–172Google Scholar
  31. Kacelnik A, Cotton PA, Stirling L, Wright J (1995) Food allocation among nestling starlings: sibling competition and the scope of parental choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kilner RM (2001) A growth cost of begging in captive Canary chicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11394–11398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kilner RM, Davies NB (1999) How selfish is a cuckoo chick? Anim Behav 58:797–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kilner R, Johnstone RA (1997) Begging the question: are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of need? Trends Ecol Evol 12:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB (1999) Signals of need in parent–offspring communication and their exploitation by the Common Cuckoo. Nature 397:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King DI, DeGraaf RM (2006) Predators at bird nests in a northern hardwood forest in New Hampshire. J Field Ornithol 77:239–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Langmore NE, Hunt S, Kilner RM (2003) Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic young. Nature 422:157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Langmore NE, Maurer G, Adcock GJ, Kilner RM (2008) Socially acquired host-specific mimicry and the evolution of host races in Horsfield’s Bronze-cuckoo Chalcites basalis. Evolution 62:1689–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larivière S (1999) Why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains. Condor 101:718–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leech S, Leonard M (1997) Begging and the risk of predation in nestling birds. Behav Ecol 8:1990–1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leonard ML, Horn AG, Porter J (2003) Does begging affect growth in nestling Tree Swallows, Tachycineta bicolor? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leonrad ML, Horn AG, Mukhida A (2005) False alarms and begging in nestling birds. Anim Behav 69:701–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liebezeit JR, George TL (2002) Nest predators, nest-site selection, and nesting success of the Dusky Flycatcher in a managed ponderosa pine forest. Condor 104:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacDonald MA, Bolton M (2008) Predation on wader nests in Europe. Ibis 150:S54–S73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Madden JR, Kilner RM, Davies NB (2005) Nestling responses to adult food and alarm calls. 2. Cowbirds and Red-winged Blackbirds reared by Eastern Phoebe hosts. Anim Behav 70:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maurer G, Magrath RD, Leonard ML, Horn AG, Donnelly C (2003) Begging to differ: Scrubwren nestlings beg to alarm calls and vocalize when parents are absent. Anim Behav 65:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCarty JP (1996) The energetic cost of begging in nestling passerines. Auk 113:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDonald P, Wilson D, Evans C (2009) Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing. Behav Ecol 20:821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Platzen D, Magrath R (2004) Parental alarm calls suppress nestling vocalization. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1271–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Quillfeldt P (2002) Begging in the absence of sibling competition in Wilson’s Storm-petrels, Oceanites oceanicus. Anim Behav 64:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Core Team (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  52. Reidy JL, Thompson FR (2012) Predatory identity can explain nest predation patterns. Stud Avian Biol 43:135–148Google Scholar
  53. Remeš V (2005) Birds and rodents destroy different nests: a study of Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla using the removal of nest concealment. Ibis 147:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Romano A, Caprioli M, Boncoraglio G, Saino N, Rubolini D (2012) With a little help from my kin: Barn Swallow nestlings modulate solicitation of parental care according to nestmates’ need. J Evol Biol 25:1703–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Romano A, Boncoraglio G, Rubolini D, Saino N (2013) Parent-absent signalling of need and its consequences for sibling competition in the Barn Swallow. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:851–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Romano A, Rubolini D, Caprioli M, Musitelli F, Ambrosini R, Saino N (2015) Parent-absent begging in Barn Swallow broods: causes of individual variation and effects on sibling interactions and food allocation. Evol Biol 42:432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roulin A (2001) Food supply differentially affects sibling negotiation and competition in the Barn Owl (Tyto alba). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:514–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roulin A, Kölliker M, Richner H (2000) Barn Owl (Tyto alba) siblings vocally negotiate resources. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:459–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schaefer T (2004) Video monitoring of shrub-nests reveals nest predators. Bird Study 51:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Šicha V, Procházka P, Honza M (2007) Hopeless solicitation? Host-absent vocalization in the Common Cuckoo has no effect on feeding rate of reed warblers. J Ethol 25:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soler M, Soler JJ, Martinez JG, Moreno J (1999) Begging behaviour and its energetic cost in Great Spotted Cuckoo and magpie host chicks. Can J Zool 77:1794–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stevens DK, Anderson GQA, Grice PV, Norris K, Butcher N (2008) Predators of Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata nests in southern England as determined by digital nest-cameras. Bird Study 55:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tinbergen L (1960) The natural control of insects in pinewoods. Arch Neer Zool 13:265–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weidinger K (2002) Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. J Anim Ecol 71:424–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weidinger K (2009) Nest predators of woodland open-nesting songbirds in central Europe. Ibis 151:352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weidinger K, Kočvara R (2010) Repeatability of nest predation in passerines depends on predator species and time scale. Oikos 119:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate Biology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Zoology and Laboratory of Ornithology, Faculty of SciencePalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations