Skip to main content

The presence of conspecific females influences male-mobbing behavior

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold KE (2000) Group mobbing behaviour and nest defence in a cooperatively breeding Australian bird. Ethology 106:385–393

    Article  Google 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 104:387–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barske J, Schlinger BA, Wikelski M, Fusani L (2011) Female choice for male motor skills. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:3523–3528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (2012) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google 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 19:315–319

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chandler CR, Rose RK (1988) Comparative analysis of the effects of visual and auditory stimuli on avian mobbing behavior. J Field Ornithol 269–277

  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 202:899–901

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978b) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. Z Tierpsychol 48:184–202

    Article  Google 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 60:83–88

    Article  Google 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, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dubois F, Belzile A (2012) Audience effect alters male mating preferences in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). PLoS One 7:e43697

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 249:179–184

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M (2001) Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Anim Behav 62:1067–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An {R} companion to applied regression, Second edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA

    Google Scholar 

  18. Francis AM, Hailman JP, Woolfenden GE (1989) Mobbing by Florida scrub jays: behaviour, sexual asymmetry, role of helpers and ontogeny. Anim Behav 38:795–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Griesser M (2008) Referential calls signal predator behavior in a group-living bird species. Curr Biol 18:69–73

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Griesser M (2009) Mobbing calls signal predator category in a kin group-living bird species. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2887–2892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Griesser M, Ekman J (2005) Nepotistic mobbing behaviour in the Siberian jay, Perisoreus infaustus. Anim Behav 69:345–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Griesser M, Suzuki TN (2016) Kinship modulates the attention of naive individuals to the mobbing behaviour of role models. Anim Behav 112:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Griesser M, Suzuki TN (2017) Naive juveniles are more likely to become breeders after witnessing predator mobbing. Am Nat 189(1):58–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33(2):1–22

  25. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2012) The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491:444–448

  26. Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ (1990) The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krama T, Krams I (2005) Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 16:37–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krams I, Krama T (2002) Interspecific reciprocity explains mobbing behaviour of the breeding chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2345–2350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2008) Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:599–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kryštofková M, Haas M, Exnerová A (2011) Nest defense in blackbirds Turdus merula: effect of predator distance and parental sex. Acta Ornithol 46:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Majerus MEN (1986) The genetics and evolution of female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 1:1–7

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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 52:372–378

    Article  Google 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 139:1211–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Motta-Junior JC (2006) Relações tróficas entre cinco Strigiformes simpátricas na região central do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Rev Bras Ornitol 14:359–377

    Google 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 23:159–168

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pavey CR, Smyth AK (1998) Effects of avian mobbing on roost use and diet of powerful owls, Ninox strenua. Anim Behav 55:313–318

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Regelmann K, Curio E (1986) Why do great tit (Parus major) males defend their brood more than females do? Anim Behav 34:1206–1214

    Article  Google 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 17:354–373

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 114:77–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shedd DH (1983) Seasonal variation in mobbing intensity in the black-capped chickadee. Wilson Bull 95:343–348

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sordahl TA (1990) The risks of avian mobbing and distraction behavior: an anecdotal review. Wilson Bull 102:349–352

    Google Scholar 

  42. Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  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 14:379–392

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filipe Cristovão Ribeiro da Cunha.

Ethics declarations

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).

Additional information

Communicated by P. A. Bednekoff

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Cunha, F.C.R., Fontenelle, J.C.R. & Griesser, M. The presence of conspecific females influences male-mobbing behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71, 52 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2267-7

Download citation

Keywords

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