Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 3591–3604 | Cite as

Investigating responses to control: a comparison of common myna behaviour across areas of high and low trapping pressure

  • Marie C. Diquelou
  • Geoff R. MacFarlane
  • Andrea S. Griffin
Original Paper

Abstract

Harvesting of wildlife by humans is commonly known to impact target species’ demography, life history and behaviour. Yet in the context of invasive and pest species control, behavioural shifts have received very little attention. The introduced common myna, Acridotheres tristis, is undergoing intensive control efforts in some areas of its Australian distribution. In order to investigate whether myna populations respond to harvesting, we compared the behaviour of free-ranging common mynas in areas of high and low trapping pressure. Behavioural analyses revealed that mynas in high  trapping risk areas stayed closer to refuges, tended to form smaller groups, and were overall less detectable. Behavioural differences between high and lowly trapped areas were not attributable to variation in population density. Overall, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that common mynas have the potential to adjust their behaviour in response to heightened anthropic risk in the environment. Behavioural shifts in invasive alien species could modify their ecological impact and may interfere not only with the effectiveness of control measures, but also with how their effectiveness is assessed. Future research should aim to isolate behavioural mechanisms underpinning compensatory responses to control so that any potential effects can be mitigated.

Keywords

Wildlife harvesting Invasive species Detectability Wildlife management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all local government areas and volunteer groups who took time to answer our questionnaires and share their data, in particular the Canberra Indian Myna Action Group (CIMAG). We would also like to thank Nils Hedouin for his assistance with the fieldwork.

Funding

This work was financially supported by a grant from the Australian Pest Animal Research Program (APARP) and by a scholarship from the Wyong Shire Council and the University of Newcastle.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data accessibility

Data available on www.figshare.com.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1798_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (786 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 787 kb)

References

  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Hard JJ (2009) Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:9987–9994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alós J, Palmer M, Arlinghaus R (2012) consistent selection towards low activity phenotypes when catchability depends on encounters among human predators and fish. PLoS ONE 7:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alós J, Palmer M, Trías P, Díaz-Gil C, Arlinghaus R (2014) Recreational angling intensity correlates with alteration of vulnerability to fishing in a carnivorous coastal fish species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arlinghaus R, Alós J, Klefoth T, Laskowski K, Monk CT, Nakayama S, Schröder A et al (2016) Consumptive tourism causes timidity, rather than boldness, syndromes: a response to Geffroy et al. Trends Ecol Evol 31:92–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bibby C, Jones M, Marsden S (1998) Expedition field techniques: bird surveys. Royal Geographical Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown GE, Chivers DP (2005) Learning as an adaptative response to predation. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of predator–prey interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–54Google Scholar
  9. Brown GE, Ferrari MC, Elvidge CK, Ramnarine I, Chivers DP (2013) Phenotypically plastic neophobia: a response to variable predation risk. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 280:1–8Google Scholar
  10. Burger J, Gochfeld M (1991) Human distance and birds: tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environ Conserv 18:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caraco T, Martindale S, Pulliam HR (1980) Avian flocking in the presence of a predator. Nature 285:400–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Carthey AJR, Blumstein DT (2018) Predicting predator recognition in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 33:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ciuti S, Muhly TB, Paton DG, McDevitt AD, Musiani M, Boyce MS (2012) Human selection of elk behavioural traits in a landscape of fear. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 279:4407–4416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coltman DW, O’Donoghue P, Jorgenson JT, Hogg JT, Strobeck C, Festa-Bianchet M (2003) Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature 426:655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conover MR (1994) Stimuli eliciting distress calls in adult passerines and response of predators and birds to their broadcast. Behaviour 131:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Côté IM, Darling ES, Malpica-Cruz L, Smith NS, Green SJ, Curtis-Quick J, Layman C (2014) What doesn’t kill you makes you wary? Effect of repeated culling on the behaviour of an invasive predator. PLoS ONE 9:e94248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Feare C, Craig A (1999) Common myna, Acridotheres tristis. In: Feare C, Craig A (eds) Starlings and mynas. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 157–160Google Scholar
  19. Fenberg PB, Roy K (2008) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of size-selective harvesting: how much do we know? Mol Ecol 17:209–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder MN, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD model builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grarock K, Tidemann CR, Wood JT, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Is it benign or is it a Pariah? Empirical evidence for the impact of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis) on Australian birds. PLoS ONE 7:e40622CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Grarock K, Tidemann CR, Wood JT, Lindenmayer DB (2014) Understanding basic species population dynamics for effective control: a case study on community-led culling of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis). Biol Invasions 16:1427–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffin AS (2004) Social learning about predators: a review and prospectus. Learn Behav 32:131–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffin AS (2008) Social learning in Indian mynahs, Acridotheres tristis: the role of distress calls. Anim Behav 75:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffin AS (2009) Temporal limitations on social learning of novel predators by Indian mynahs, Acridotheres tristis. Ethology 115:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffin AS, Boyce HM (2009) Indian mynahs, Acridotheres tristis, learn about dangerous places by observing the fate of others. Anim Behav 78:79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffin AS, Haythorpe K (2011) Learning from watching alarmed demonstrators: does the cause of alarm matter? Anim Behav 81:1163–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffin AS, Blumstein DT, Evans CS (2000) Training captive-bred or translocated animals to avoid predators. Conserv Biol 14:1317–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffin AS, Evans CS, Blumstein DT (2001) Learning specificity in acquired predator recognition. Anim Behav 62:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffin AS, Boyce HM, MacFarlane GR (2010) Social learning about places: observers may need to detect both social alarm and its cause in order to learn. Anim Behav 79:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King DH (2010) The effect of trapping pressure on trap avoidance and the role of foraging strategies in anti-predator behaviour of common mynas (Sturnus tristis). Canberra Bird Notes 35:85–108Google Scholar
  32. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuparinen A, Merilä J (2007) Detecting and managing fisheries-induced evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 22:652–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Le Saout S, Padié S, Chamaillé-Jammes S, Chollet S, Côté S, Morellet N, Pattison J, Harris E, Martin J-L (2014) Short-term effects of hunting on naïve black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis): behavioural response and consequences on vegetation growth. Can J Zool 92:915–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas M, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Auckland, Invasive Species Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), p 12Google Scholar
  37. Lowe K, Taylor C, Major R (2011) Do common mynas significantly compete with native birds in urban environments? J Ornithol 152:909–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Madden JR, Whiteside MA (2014) Selection on behavioural traits during ‘unselective’ harvesting means that shy pheasants better survive a hunting season. Anim Behav 87:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches. In: Marzluff J, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Springer, New York, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller JRB, Ament JM, Schmitz OJ (2014) Fear on the move: predator hunting mode predicts variation in prey mortality and plasticity in prey spatial response. J Anim Ecol 83:214–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ordiz A, Støen O-G, Sæbø S, Kindberg J, Delibes M, Swenson JE (2012) Do bears know they are being hunted? Biol Conserv 152:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peacock DS, van Rensburg BJ, Robertson MP (2007) The distribution and spread of the invasive alien common myna, Acridotheres tristis L. (Aves: Sturnidae), in southern Africa. S Afr J Sci 103:465–473Google Scholar
  43. Pell AS, Tidemann CR (1997) The impact of two exotic hollow-nesting birds on two native parrots in savannah and woodland in eastern Australia. Biol Conserv 79:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pigeon G, Festa-Bianchet M, Coltman DW, Pelletier F (2016) Intense selective hunting leads to artificial evolution in horn size. Evol Appl 9:521–530CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Preisser EL, Orrock JL, Schmitz OJ (2007) Predator hunting mode and habitat domain alter nonconsumptive effects in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 88:2744–2751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  47. Slotow R, Coumi N (2000) Vigilance in Bronze Mannikin Groups: the contributions of predation risk and intra-group competition. Behaviour 137:565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sol D, Bartomeus I, Griffin A (2012) The paradox of invasion in birds: competitive superiority or ecological opportunism? Oecologia 169:553–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sullivan AP, Bird DW, Perry GH (2017) Human behaviour as a long-term ecological driver of non-human evolution. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uusi-Heikkilä S, Wolter C, Klefoth T, Arlinghaus R (2008) A behavioral perspective on fishing-induced evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 23:419–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. White JG, Antos MJ, Fitzsimons JA, Palmer GC (2005) Non-uniform bird assemblages in urban environments: the influence of streetscape vegetation. Landsc Urban Plan 71:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wittenberg R, Cock MJ (2001) Invasive alien species: a toolkit of best prevention and management practices. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ydenberg R, Prins H (2012) Foraging. In: Candolin U, Wong BBM (eds) Behavioural responses to a changing world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Ydenberg RC, Butler RW, Lank DB, Smith BD, Ireland J (2004) Western sandpipers have altered migration tactics as peregrine falcon populations have recovered. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1263–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Zero-truncated and zero-inflated models for count data. In: Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, Berlin, pp 261–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations