Skip to main content
Log in

Colonial and single breeding in fieldfares, Turdus pilaris L.: a comparison of nesting success in early and late broods

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Pairs of fieldfares breed singly or in colonies. Their breeding season was subdivided into an early part, when the trees were still leafless, and a late part, when the trees had leaves. Early colonial pairs has a significantly higher nesting success than single pairs. However, amongst late broods the nesting success of both categories of pairs was the same. Colonies of only two pairs show a weak trend suggesting that it could be advantageous for early broods to have a neighbour nearby, while the nesting success of late broods seems to be highest if the neighbour is farther away. The number of neighbours is more important than the distance to the nearest neighbour when colonies of different sizes are examined. The nesting success of colonial broods is also influenced by the time of breeding. Success increases with colony size, in early colonies, but the opposite applies for the late breeding season.

A little owl was placed near single and colonial nests to show how communal defence contributed to the greater success of early colonial nests. Predators entering a colony risk being contaminated by significantly more faeces due to the higher rate of attacks by fieldfares using aimed defecation near colonial nests and these could affect the predators' flying ability.

The possibility of fieldfare colonies serving as information centres for food finding is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson M, Wiklund CG (1978) Clumping versus spacing out: experiments on nest predation in fieldfares (Turdus pilaris). Anim Behav 26:1207–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezzel E (1975) Die Wirksamkeit der Kotattacken von Wacholderdrosseln (Turdus pilaris) auf Greifvögel. J Ornithol 116:488–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Crook JH (1964) The evolution of social organization and visual communication in the weaver birds (Ploceidae). Behaviour (Suppl) 10:1–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Furrer RK (1975) Häufigkeit und Wirksamkeit des Angriffsverhaltens bei der Wacholderdrossel Turdus pilaris. Ornithol Beob 72:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Furrer RK (1977) Warum brüten Wacholderdrosseln in Kolonien? J Ornithol 118:227–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Furrer RK (1979) Zum Angriffsverhalten der Wacholderdrossel (Turdus pilaris) und dem Verhalten der Angegriffenen. Ornithol Mitt 31:141–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas V (1980) Ethologische und ökologische Untersuchungen an süddeutschen Wacholderdrosseln (Turdus pilaris L.) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Koloniebrütens. Dissertation Fakultät für Biologie, Universität Tübingen

  • Haas V (1982) Beitrag zur Biologie und Ökologie der Wacholderdrossel (Turdus pilaris L.). Ökol Vögel 4:17–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogstad O (1983) Is nest predation really selecting for colonial breeding among fieldfares Turdus pilaris? Ibis 125:366–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn HS (1968) The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus). Ecology 49:682–694

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmannsperger F (1955) Über Rhythmen bei Lumbriciden. Decheniana 108:81–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Löhrl H (1983) Zur Feindabwehr der Wacholderdrossel (Turdus pilaris). J Ornithol 124:271–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübcke W (1975a) Zur Ökologie und Brutbiologie der Wacholderdrossel (Turdus pilaris L.). J Ornithol 116:281–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübcke W (1975b) Nahrungsuntersuchungen an der Wacholderdrossel (Turdus pilaris). Vogelkundl Hefte Waldeck-Frankenberg/Fritzlar-Homberg 1:82–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester H (1976) Defensive Defäkation in der Vogelwelt. Ornithol Beob 73:99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto C (1979) Environmental factors affecting egg weight within and between colonies of fieldfare Turdus pilaris. Ornis Scand 10:111–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Slagsvold T (1980) Egg predation in woodland in relation to the presence and density of breeding fieldfares Turdus pilaris. Ornis Scand 11:92–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry Freeman, San Francisco, Calif

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N, Impekoven M, Franck D (1967) An experiment on spacing-out as a defense against predation. Behaviour 28:307–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward P, Zahavi A (1973) The importance of certain assemblages of birds as “Information-Centres” for food-finding. Ibis 115:517–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund CG (1982) Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) breeding success in relation to colony size, nest position and association with merlins (Falco columbarius). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:165–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund CG (1983) Social organization and breeding biology of the fieldfare, Turdus pilaris. PhD thesis, University of Göteborg

  • Wiklund CG, Andersson M (1980) Nest predation selects for colonial breeding among fieldares Turdus pilaris. Ibis 122:363–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund CG, Andersson M (1983) Nest defence by solitary and colonial fieldfares Turdus pilaris. In: Wiklund CG PhD thesis, University of Göteborg

  • Wilcke DE (1962) Untersuchungen über die Einwirkungen von Stallmist und Mineraldüngung auf den Besatz und die Leistung der Regenwürmer im Ackerboden. Monogr Angew Entomol; Beitr Z Angew Entomol 18:121–167

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haas, V. Colonial and single breeding in fieldfares, Turdus pilaris L.: a comparison of nesting success in early and late broods. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16, 119–124 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295145

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295145

Keywords

Navigation