Advertisement

The presence of conspecific females influences male-mobbing behavior

  • Filipe Cristovão Ribeiro da CunhaEmail author
  • Julio Cesar Rodrigues Fontenelle
  • Michael Griesser
Original Article

Abstract

Many prey species mob predators to drive them away, thereby reducing their immediate and future predation risk. Given that mobbing is risky, it may also serve as an opportunity for males to advertise their phenotypic quality to females; however, this idea remains untested. We tested this hypothesis with a field experiment in south-eastern Brazil that assessed the response of sexually dimorphic bird species to models of two diurnal owls: a ferruginous pygmy owl (Glaucidium brasilianum), which mainly eats small birds, and a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), which mainly eats invertebrates and thus poses a low risk to birds. Across 19 bird species, the mobbing intensity was higher when facing the less-dangerous owl, and more males engaged in predator mobbing than females. The mobbing intensity of males was higher with a larger number of conspecific females present. This finding indicates that males may use mobbing to display their phenotypic quality to females, suggesting that predator mobbing may be influenced by sexual selection.

Significance statement

Predation is an important evolutionary force, often leading to an evolutionary arms race between predators and their prey. A puzzling form of prey-predator interactions is predator mobbing. In a wide range of species, prey individuals approach predators and show characteristic visual and acoustic displays. The primary function of mobbing is to drive the predator away; however, it may also serve as an opportunity to advertise phenotypic quality to conspecifics. Field experiments showed that the mobbing intensity of males increased with the number of conspecific females in the audience, suggesting that female choice may influence the evolution of mobbing behavior.

Keywords

Anti-predatory behavior Prey-predator interaction Mobbing Sexual selection Birds 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to José Hein and the employees from the Cauaia Ranch, especially Cida, Peba, and Warley. We thank Gretchen Wagner, Carel van Schaik Erik Willems, and two anonymous reviewers for the advice and comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

FCRC received funding from Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto and Science Without Boarders/Capes (BEX 8920133). MG was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (PPOOP3_123520, PP00P3_150752).

Ethical statement

The study was conducted under research permits issued by the local authorities (Sistema de Autorização e Informação em Biodiversidade).

Supplementary material

265_2017_2267_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

  1. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold KE (2000) Group mobbing behaviour and nest defence in a cooperatively breeding Australian bird. Ethology 106:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bard SC, Hau M, Wikelski M, Wingfield JC (2002) Vocal distinctiveness and response to conspecific playback in the spotted antbird, a neotropical suboscine. Condor 104:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barske J, Schlinger BA, Wikelski M, Fusani L (2011) Female choice for male motor skills. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:3523–3528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (2012) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrera JD, Fernandez FJ, Kacoliris FP, Pagano L, Berkunsky I (2008) Field notes on the breeding biology and diet of ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum) in the dry Chaco of Argentina. Ornitol Neotrop 19:315–319Google Scholar
  8. Chandler CR, Rose RK (1988) Comparative analysis of the effects of visual and auditory stimuli on avian mobbing behavior. J Field Ornithol 269–277Google Scholar
  9. Core Team R (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  10. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978a) Cultural transmission of enemy recognition: one function of mobbing. Science 202:899–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978b) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. Z Tierpsychol 48:184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curio E, Klump G, Regelmann K (1983) An anti-predator response in the great tit (Parus major): is it tuned to predator risk? Oecologia 60:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, de Juana E (2015) Handbook of the birds of the world alive. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubois F, Belzile A (2012) Audience effect alters male mating preferences in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). PLoS One 7:e43697CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M (2001) Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Anim Behav 62:1067–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An {R} companion to applied regression, Second edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Francis AM, Hailman JP, Woolfenden GE (1989) Mobbing by Florida scrub jays: behaviour, sexual asymmetry, role of helpers and ontogeny. Anim Behav 38:795–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griesser M (2008) Referential calls signal predator behavior in a group-living bird species. Curr Biol 18:69–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Griesser M (2009) Mobbing calls signal predator category in a kin group-living bird species. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2887–2892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griesser M, Ekman J (2005) Nepotistic mobbing behaviour in the Siberian jay, Perisoreus infaustus. Anim Behav 69:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griesser M, Suzuki TN (2016) Kinship modulates the attention of naive individuals to the mobbing behaviour of role models. Anim Behav 112:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griesser M, Suzuki TN (2017) Naive juveniles are more likely to become breeders after witnessing predator mobbing. Am Nat 189(1):58–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33(2):1–22Google Scholar
  25. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2012) The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491:444–448Google Scholar
  26. Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ (1990) The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krama T, Krams I (2005) Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 16:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krams I, Krama T (2002) Interspecific reciprocity explains mobbing behaviour of the breeding chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2345–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2008) Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kryštofková M, Haas M, Exnerová A (2011) Nest defense in blackbirds Turdus merula: effect of predator distance and parental sex. Acta Ornithol 46:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Majerus MEN (1986) The genetics and evolution of female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 1:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Maklakov AA (2002) Snake-directed mobbing in a cooperative breeder: anti-predator behaviour or self-advertisement for the formation of dispersal coalitions? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matos R, McGregor P (2002) The effect of the sex of an audience on male-male displays of siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behaviour 139:1211–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Motta-Junior JC (2006) Relações tróficas entre cinco Strigiformes simpátricas na região central do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Rev Bras Ornitol 14:359–377Google Scholar
  35. Motta-Junior JC, Santos-Filho PS (2012) Mobbing on the striped owl (Asio clamator) and barn owl (Tyto alba) by birds in southeast Brazil: do owl diets influence mobbing? Ornitol Neotrop 23:159–168Google Scholar
  36. Pavey CR, Smyth AK (1998) Effects of avian mobbing on roost use and diet of powerful owls, Ninox strenua. Anim Behav 55:313–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Regelmann K, Curio E (1986) Why do great tit (Parus major) males defend their brood more than females do? Anim Behav 34:1206–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V (2012) When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods 17:354–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Searcy WA (1979) Female choice of mates: a general model for birds and its application to red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Am Nat 114:77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shedd DH (1983) Seasonal variation in mobbing intensity in the black-capped chickadee. Wilson Bull 95:343–348Google Scholar
  41. Sordahl TA (1990) The risks of avian mobbing and distraction behavior: an anecdotal review. Wilson Bull 102:349–352Google Scholar
  42. Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Zilio F (2006) Dieta de Falco sparverius (Aves: Falconidae) e Athene cunicularia (Aves: Strigidae) em uma região de dunas no sul do Brasil. Rev Bras Ornitol 14:379–392Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe Cristovão Ribeiro da Cunha
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Julio Cesar Rodrigues Fontenelle
    • 3
  • Michael Griesser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Instituto de Ciências Exatas e Biológicas, Campus Ouro PretoUniversidade Federal de Ouro PretoOuro PretoBrazil
  3. 3.Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais, Laboratório de Pesquisas Ambientais, Campus Ouro PretoOuro PretoBrazil

Personalised recommendations