Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 10, pp 1623–1635 | Cite as

A critical analysis of ‘false-feeding’ behavior in a cooperatively breeding bird: disturbance effects, satiated nestlings or deception?

  • Paul G. McDonald
  • Anahita J. N. Kazem
  • Jonathan Wright
Original Paper


‘False feeding,’ where helpers arrive at nests with food but fail to provision the young, has been reported in several cooperative species. This and other potentially ‘deceptive’ behavior has been interpreted as indicating that helping may operate as a signal within such social groups. We critically examine these phenomena in the provisioning behavior of the bell miner Manorina melanophrys. Excessively close observation distances can artificially elevate the rate of false feeding in this (and other) species, but once this had been accounted for, there was little evidence for any ‘deceptive’ behavior by helpers or breeders. Natural and experimentally induced variation in the presence of a potential conspecific audience at the nest did not have any consistent influence upon the rate of false feeds, which was low at 7.94% of 6,880 nest visits. Instead, encountering unexpectedly low levels of brood demand provided a more parsimonious explanation for those visits where helpers failed to feed nestlings or ate the food themselves. Failure to completely transfer a load to nestlings was more likely when the load contained a high proportion of sticky lerp, indicating a simple prey-transfer problem. Finally, individuals that arrived at nests without prey were often members of neighboring breeding pairs, suggesting that these few non-feeding visits may instead involve an information-gathering function. We, therefore, suggest that future studies explicitly exclude the possibility of observer disturbance and all aspects of normal provisioning behavior before applying the terms ‘false feeding’ or ‘deceptive’ and inferring anything more than straightforward helping at the nest.


Bell miner White-winged chough Carrion crow Helping at the nest Signaling hypotheses 



Nick and Joan Hoogenraad and the La Trobe University Wildlife Reserve kindly allowed field work to be undertaken on their land. We thank Maria Pacheco, Luc te Marvelde, James O’Connor, Dean Ingerson, and Amanda Dare for their assistance with the fieldwork. Anna Lashko, Mike Double, and Andrew Cockburn provided facilities for and carried out the molecular analyses. Robert Gibson, Robert Heinsohn, and an anonymous reviewer commented on an earlier version of this manuscript. Leg bands were provided by the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Service. This research was carried out under a BBSRC grant (5/S19268) to J.W. and the University of Wales, Bangor, and was approved by the La Trobe University Animal Ethics Committee (license AEC01/19(L)/V2) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (license 10002082).


  1. Boland CRJ, Heinsohn R, Cockburn A (1997) Deception by helpers in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs and its experimental manipulation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown JL (1987) Helping and communal breeding in birds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Canestrari D, Marcos JM, Baglione V (2004) False feedings at the nests of carrion crows Corvus corone corone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlisle TR, Zahavi A (1986) Helping at the nest, allofeeding and social status in immature Arabian babblers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charif RA, Clark CW, Fristrup KM (2004) Raven 1.2 user’s manual. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke MF (1984) Cooperative breeding by the Australian bell miner Manorina melanophrys Latham: a test of kin selection theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke MF (1989) The pattern of helping in the bell miner (Manorina melanophrys). Ethology 80:292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke MF, Fitz-Gerald GF (1994) Spatial organisation of the cooperatively breeding bell miner Manorina melanophrys. Emu 94:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke MF, Heathcote CF (1990) Dispersal, survivorship and demography in the cooperatively breeding bell miner Manorina melanophrys. Emu 90:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH, Russell AF, Sharpe LL, Jordan NR (2005) ‘False feeding’ and aggression in meerkat societies. Anim Behav 69:1273–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockburn A (2006) Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1375–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad KF, Clarke MF, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1998) Paternity and the relatedness of helpers in the cooperatively breeding bell miner (Manorina melanophrys). Condor 100:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emlen ST (1991) Evolution of cooperative breeding in birds and mammals. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 301–337Google Scholar
  14. Fridolfsson AK, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J Avian Biol 30:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaston AJ (1978) Ecology of the common babbler Turdoides caudatus. Ibis 120:415–432Google Scholar
  16. Goodnight KF, Queller DC (1999) Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Mol Ecol 8:1231–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones DA (1998) Parentage, mate removal experiments and sex allocation in the cooperatively breeding bell miner, Manorina melanophrys. MSc thesis, Queen’s University, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Koenig WD, Dickinson JL (2004) Ecology and evolution of cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Kokko H, Johnstone RA, Wright J (2002) The evolution of parental and alloparental effort in cooperatively breeding groups: when should helpers pay to stay? Behav Ecol 13:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langen TA (1996) The mating system of the white-throated magpie-jay Calocitta formosa and Greenwood’s hypothesis for sex-biased dispersal. Ibis 138:506–513Google Scholar
  21. Lawton MF, Guindon CF (1981) Flock composition, breeding success, and learning in the brown jay. Condor 83:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legge S (2000) Helper contributions in the cooperatively breeding laughing kookaburra: feeding young is no laughing matter. Anim Behav 59:1009–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonald PG, Heathcote CF, Clarke MF, Wright J, Kazem AJN (2007) Provisioning calls of the cooperatively breeding bell miner Manorina melanophrys encode sufficient information for individual discrimination. J Avian Biol 38:113–121Google Scholar
  24. Mulder RA, Langmore NE (1993) Dominant males punish helpers for temporary defection in superb fairy-wrens. Anim Behav 45:830–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Painter JN, Crozier RH, Crozier YC, Clarke MF (1997) Characterization of microsatellite loci for a cooperatively breeding honeyeater. Mol Ecol 6:1103–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Painter JN, Crozier RH, Poiani A, Robertson RJ, Clarke MF (2000) Complex social organization reflects genetic structure and relatedness in the cooperatively breeding bell miner, Manorina melanophrys. Mol Ecol 9:1339–1347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piper WH (1994) Courtship, copulation, nesting behavior and brood parasitism in the Venezuelan stripe-backed wren. Condor 96:654–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poiani A (1993) Social structure and the development of helping behaviour in the bell miner (Manorina melanophrys, Meliphagidae). Ethology 93:62–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reyer H-U (1990) Pied kingfishers: ecological causes and reproductive consequences of cooperative breeding. In: Stacey PB, Koenig WD (eds) Cooperative breeding in birds: long term studies of ecology and behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 527–557Google Scholar
  31. Semple S, McComb K (1996) Behavioural deception. Trends Ecol Evol 11:434–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stallcup JA, Woolfenden GE (1978) Family status and contributions to breeding by Florida scrub-jays. Anim Behav 26:1144–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright J (1997) Helping-at-the-nest in Arabian babblers: signalling social status or sensible investment in chicks? Anim Behav 54:1439–1448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright J (1998) Helpers-at-the-nest have the same provisioning rule as parents: experimental evidence from play-backs of chick begging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright J (1999) Altruism as a signal—Zahavi’s alternative to kin selection and reciprocity. J Avian Biol 30:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zahavi A (1977) Reliability in communication systems and the evolution of altruism. In: Stonehouse B, Perrins C (eds) Evolutionary ecology. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 253–259Google Scholar
  37. Zahavi A (1995) Altruism as a handicap: limitations of kin selection and reciprocity. J Avian Biol 26:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul G. McDonald
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Anahita J. N. Kazem
    • 3
  • Jonathan Wright
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of WalesBangorUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyLa Trobe UniversityBundooraAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of BiologyNTNUTrondheimNorway
  4. 4.Centre for the Integrative Study of Animal BehaviourMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations