Abstract
Squirrels and some corvids have successfully adapted to urban conditions. Their populations are often more abundant in city parks than in rural areas. These species may compete, especially in terms of food resources. We studied interactions between corvids (hooded crows and rooks) and red squirrels inhabiting urban park, mostly in relation to supplementary food utilisation in Poland. The study included the following: (a) feeding trials, when squirrels were offered hazelnuts and all stealing attempts by other animals were noted; (b) direct observations of groups of animals (at least one squirrel and one corvid species) with all behaviours being recorded. During the feeding trial, and with constant corvid presence, corvids tried to steal almost every third nut cached by squirrels. Regardless of the season, the share of nuts that corvids tried to steal was similar. When the feeding trial proceeded, more squirrels joined in order to obtain food. On the contrary, the presence of corvids seemed to refrain other corvids from joining the trial. The presence of a bird/squirrel audience did not result in more deceptive caches. During direct observations, squirrels interacted mostly with corvids, and less often with people or other squirrels. The most frequent interaction of squirrels with other animals was flight and chasing away; for corvids, it was chasing and following or attempting to steal food. Overall, we showed that corvids can be food competitors and kleptoparasites for red squirrels. Red squirrels, with whom people often have affinity relationships, benefited from direct supplementary feeding. Corvids, in turn, learnt to follow red squirrels to steal human-delivered nuts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Some species of animals are able to adapt to urban habitats (Luniak 2004; Baker and Harris 2007; McKinney 2008; Francis and Chadwick 2012). Mammals and birds are two groups of animals that include urban adapters such as red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris (Luniak 2004; Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008; Beliniak et al. 2022) and Corvidae birds (e.g. Żmihorski et al. 2010; Benmazouz et al. 2021). Urban populations of corvids and squirrels may differ from those inhabiting natural habitats, i.e. they will reach much higher densities, especially in urban parks (Luniak 1981; Jokimäki and Suhonen 1998; Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008; Jadczyk et al. 2013; Kövér et al. 2015; Beliniak et al. 2022). Urban animals are often bolder (i.e. their FIDs are shorter) than their non-urban counterparts (Uchida et al. 2016; Samia et al. 2017), which may help them to explore new feeding opportunities. People provide supplementary food (offered directly or left in bird feeders) that is used by both squirrels (Rézouki et al. 2014; Reher et al. 2016; Jokimäki et al. 2017; Kostrzewa and Krauze-Gryz 2020; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021a) and corvids (Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006; Tryjanowski et al. 2015; Plaza and Lambertucci 2017). These animals can also utilise leftovers searched for in bins (Plaza and Lambertucci 2017; Wist et al. 2022; García-Arroyo et al. 2023). The supplementary feeding may be crucial for maintaining high population density (Magris and Gurnell 2002; Verbeylen et al. 2009; Jokimäki et al. 2017; Benmazouz et al. 2021) and deciding on survival in cities, especially during winter (Luniak 2004).
The co-existence of urban squirrels and corvids may lead to interactions that, when food sources are involved, are mostly neutral or competitive (Bosch and Lurz 2012; Kopij 2014), i.e. if they forage at the same sites and on the same food type (Jayne et al. 2015). A specific form of competition, which involves stealing food that has been obtained by another individual of the same or another species, is kleptoparasitism (Brockmann and Barnard 1979). Most kleptoparasitic studies focus on birds (reviewed in Morand-Ferron et al. 2007), however it is common among other taxa (reviewed in Iyengar 2008). Kleptoparasitism allows certain individuals to obtain energetic benefits by robbing food from another animal, who previously invested time and effort to possess it (Thompson 1986; Ens et al. 1990).
Hoarding food items for later consumption is widespread among birds and mammals (Vander Wall 1990), including squirrels (Rice-Oxley 1993) and corvids (de Kort and Clayton 2006). Thanks to this, animals control feeding resources availability in time and space, and this gives them an advantage above other animals that do not cache food (Vander Wall and Jenkins 2003). Red squirrels are scatter hoarders, i.e. they cache food in numerous small caches as opposed to making big larders (Wauters and Casale 1996).
Stealing squirrels’ food caches by corvids was reported in the literature, e.g. Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) exploited food items stored by American red squirrel (Tamasciurus hudsonicus) (Brockmann and Barnard 1979), carrion crow (Corvus corone) and Eurasian magpie (Pica pica) that of grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) (Leaver et al. 2007) and eastern scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) caches of fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) (Anderson 2012). In the case of European red squirrels, such interactions were reported for Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius), Siberian jays (Perisoreus infaustus) and Eurasian nutcrackers (Nucifraga caryocatactes) (Bosch and Lurz 2012). Nevertheless, it was assumed that the extent of food stealing was not high enough to seriously deplete the food supplies of the host species (Leaver et al. 2007).
Some birds and mammals change their caching behaviour with the aim to minimise the stealing risk (Dally et al. 2006). Nevertheless, the response of grey squirrels did not seem to be consistent. According to one study, grey squirrels altered their foraging and vigilance behaviour in response to corvids’ auditory playbacks (Jayne et al. 2015). According to the other study, they did not appear to be sensitive to the presence of corvids while caching their food (Schmidt and Ostfeld 2008). Interestingly, grey squirrels turned back and spaced caches further apart when conspecifics (but not when corvids) were present (Leaver et al. 2007). According to our knowledge, such a response of red squirrels has not been studied so far. Investigating if corvids are responsible for stealing squirrels’ supplies is necessary to check if they pose an important stealing risk to squirrels (Leaver et al. 2007).
We focused on interactions between red squirrels and corvids (hooded crows Corvus cornix and rooks Corvus frugilegus as representatives) in an urban park with abundant populations of both taxa and in relation to supplementary food use. The park and the possibility to feed its red squirrels are tourist attractions, and squirrels make use of food offered by park visitors (Krauze-Gryz and Gryz 2015; Kostrzewa and Krauze-Gryz 2020; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021a; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021b). They were also found to alter their diurnal activity and behaviour (by spending more time on the ground, approaching people and begging for food), assumingly to increase their chances to obtain supplementary food (Beliniak et al. 2021; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021a; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021b). During our previous studies, we often observed abundant corvids interact with red squirrels (Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021a; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021b). We assumed that corvids, with their high cognitive skills (Clayton and Emery 2005), have also learnt to make use of the supplementary food, i.e. by following squirrels being offered nuts from visitors and trying to steal the obtained food. We hypothesised that if squirrels treat corvids (and other squirrels) as food competitors, they will respond to their presence by altering their behaviour while food handling, i.e. making more deceptive caches (Steele et al. 2008), as squirrels may alter their foraging and vigilance behaviour in the presence of corvids (Jayne et al. 2015). We supposed that this response will change seasonally, i.e. the reaction will be most vivid in winter/spring time when supplementary food is most important for squirrels (Shuttleworth 2000; Magris and Gurnell 2002) and corvids at this time mostly search for rood in urban parks (Luniak 2004).
Materials and methods
Study area
The study was conducted in Warsaw, the capital city of Poland, in Łazienki Park (52° 12′ 51.06″ N, 21° 1′ 58.27″ E), placed approximately 2 km from the city centre, bordered by busy roads. The city has more than 1.8 mln inhabitants, and the population density is 3600 ind/km2 (https://stat.gov.pl/). The region is affected by the relatively mild and wet oceanic climate of Western Europe, as well as the harsh and dry continental climate of Eastern Europe and Asia. The duration of the growing season is approximately 210 days; the total precipitation measures 600 mm per year; and the mean ambient temperature ranges from 4 °C in January to 18 °C in July. During typical winter in Poland, the mean number of days with snow cover varies from 29.6 to 65.8 days per winter (Szwed et al. 2017); however, during the last years, a decrease in snow cover depth and an increase in ambient temperature are noted (Tomczyk et al. 2021) (e.g. winter 2019/2020 was extremely warm and snowless). In the study year (2016), the mean year ambient temperature was 9 °C, and it was an extremely warm year (https://dane.imgw.pl/).
Łazienki Park covers 76 ha, was founded in the 17th century, and is among the biggest and oldest parks in Warsaw. The park is very popular among tourists and local inhabitants, and it is visited by over 2 million people per year (Kruczek 2015). According to the Warsaw Tourist Organization, in 2019, this park with a museum complex was the second most common tourist attraction in Warsaw (https://wot.waw.pl/wiedza/). The park has 92 species of trees and shrubs; tree cover is about 70% (Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008). Tree species are mostly deciduous, e.g. hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), common oak (Quercus robur), beech (Fagus sylvatica), as well as hazel (Corylus avellana), walnut (Juglans regia) and North American walnut (Juglans nigra) (Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008). There are also some conifer species, e.g. common yew (Taxus baccata), European spruce (Picea abies) and Duglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia). Approximately 25% of trees in the park are older than 130 years, while some reach as many as 250 years (Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008).
The park has free entrance, but it is closed during the night. Avian predators included the tawny owl Strix aluco (Gryz et al. 2008). As for mammals, red fox Vulpes vulpes (Jackowiak et al. 2021), stone marten Martes foina and free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) are present (Beliniak, pers. obs.).
Park is commonly known for an abundant population of red squirrels (Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008), reaching 1.05 to 1.89 ind./ha (Beliniak et al. 2022). During this study, we also counted the number of red squirrels and corvids recorded along a 2500 m transect route to assess their relative abundance. The transect route went around the whole park, and the counts were done once a month during the whole year. During the count, red squirrels, hooded crows and rooks were recorded if they stayed at a distance of up to 20 m from the transect route. Number of seen squirrels ranged from 9 (in October) to 45 (in November) and corvids from 2 (in October) to 101 (in January) (see Table S1 in Appendix). Red squirrels and hooded crows were present in the study site during all the study; rooks were absent from April to July. Hooded crows are present in Warsaw all year round; they breed and stay during all months. Rooks, in turn, are less numerous and are present mostly in winter when they come from the north and east of Europe (Luniak et al. 2001; Jadczyk et al. 2013).
Data collection
The study was done from January to December 2016. The year was divided into four seasons: spring (1 March–31 May), summer (1 June–31 August), autumn (1 September–30 November) and winter (1 December–28 February). Observations were done before midday, usually between 8 and 11 a.m., and in good weather conditions, when red squirrels were most active (Wauters and Dhondt 1987; Wauters et al. 1992; Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008; Beliniak et al. 2021). They were conducted during weekdays, avoiding Saturdays and Sundays when very high numbers of visitors (especially in spring and summer) could hinder observations (animals obtained plenty of food so they lost interest in it and spent less time on the ground as they were often chased by children, Beliniak, pers. obs.). We did not estimate the number of visitors during our study. Yet, according to data collected in the past, the number of visitors observed by one person walking a random path across the park and during 1 h was on weekdays 243 but on Saturday and Sunday reached 309–456 (Rykaczewska 2013).
The research consisted of two parts: (a) feeding trials and (b) observations of groups of animals (details are given below). Squirrels and corvids were not marked. To avoid testing twice the same animal on the same day, the next test was conducted in another park area. It is possible that the same individuals could have participated in the study more than once but on different days. However, sessions were taken in various park areas to make sure that as many individual squirrels as possible were involved. All observations were done by one person. Time was counted using a stopwatch and was reported in seconds. The distance was counted in metres, using a rangefinder.
Feeding trials
We planned our tests (i.e. feeding trials) to simulate situations in which red squirrels are offered nuts by park visitors. Each trial lasted 10 min. During that time, whole (unshelled) hazelnuts were offered to squirrels. The first nut was always put on the ground. Sometimes, when a squirrel was really bold and fast, the nut was given on a hand, in a way visitors usually give food (Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021a). The test started when at least one squirrel was present (up to 10 m from an observer, not necessarily with other squirrels or corvid(s) nearby). Time count started with the first nut being taken by a squirrel. Another nut was offered (i.e. placed on the ground or shown on a hand) directly after the squirrel took the first one. Three scenarios were possible: (a) corvid(s) were present from the beginning of a trial, (b) corvid(s) joined during the trial, c) corvid(s) were absent. A corvid was considered present when it was up to 10 m from a squirrel or apparently was interested in the food. Squirrels were offered nuts in random spots in the whole park.
During the trial, the number of squirrels taking food or approaching an observer was recorded every minute (more squirrels could join as the trial proceeded). Also, the number of corvids was recorded every minute. The way a squirrel handled the food was recorded, i.e. (a) cached, buried or hid between branches or in the grass; (b) ate, instantly consumed the food; and (c) unspecified, when it was not possible to note behaviour due to lost sight of the animal. To investigate if red squirrels modified their caching behaviour when other animals were present, the number of deceptive caches before the final cache was recorded. Deceptive caches were defined as covering one or more excavated or unexcavated sites without putting food inside (fake, empty sites) (Hopewell et al. 2008; Steele et al. 2008). After a final cache (where the nut was hidden), distance from the closest (but staying no further than 30 m) animal (squirrel or corvid) was noted and put into one of the three categories: 0–5 m, 6–10 m and 11–30 m. If there were several squirrels and corvids near the final cache, distance to the closest animal was only noted. When no animals were present up to 30 m from the final cache, the ‘no audience’ category was attributed. Attempts to steal nuts obtained by the squirrel from an observer by corvids or other squirrels (and the success rate) were recorded. Also, the way the stolen nut was handled: cached, eaten or unspecified (see above) was recorded. The trials were done six times per month (regularly every 3 to 5 days) during the whole year (72 days in total). During each visit to the park, two to nine feeding trials were done (17 to 28 monthly). Altogether, 280 trials were done (over 46 h of observations).
Observations of groups of animals
We started the observations when at least one squirrel and one corvid distant up to 10 m from each other were noted in any random spot in the park. In this case, an observer did not offer nuts to squirrels. We observed groups of animals during the same days as the feeding trials, but in other parts of the park to test different individuals whose behaviour was not affected by a feeding trial. Nevertheless, they could have obtained food from park visitors. Each observation lasted 5 min. The behaviour of one individual at the same time was noted. Observation was done if a squirrel (or squirrels) were on the ground, corvids could be on the ground or in the trees/on shrubs. If more individuals (either squirrels or corvids) joined the group, the observation continued. If a group fell apart before 5 min passed, the observation was stopped and was not taken into analysis. Different types of behaviour and for how long they were observed (in seconds) were recorded: (a) foraging and caching—searching for food, eating, caching; (b) inter- and intraspecific interactions—any kind of visible interactions between animals and/or humans; (c) other—drinking, travelling, grooming, no movement (without signs of stress).
Interactions between animals (both inter- and intraspecific) were noted in detail as follows: (a) attempting and stealing food (both successful and unsuccessful attempts to steal previously cached food); (b) chasing and following (when an animal tried to chase or frighten another animal to obtain nut); (c) chasing away (when an animal tried to drive away another animal to prevent stealing after or before caching food); (d) flight (from other animal). Also, interactions with people were recorded: (a) taking food from people (approaching, begging for food and getting food); (b) following people (approaching and following people but not obtaining any food); (c) flight (from people). The interactions were counted per each 5-min observation.
The observations were done six times per month throughout the whole year. Altogether, 915 min of observations were collected (over 15 h). Red squirrels were observed 89, hooded crows 67 and rooks 27 times.
Statistical analysis
A chi-square test was used to test differences in the proportions of cached (as opposed to all obtained) nuts, feeding trials with corvids trying to steal nuts obtained by squirrels, nuts that were attempted to be stolen by corvids, and time dedicated to different behaviours observed during 5 min observations. A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the numbers of animals (i.e. squirrels and corvids) per each minute of a feeding trial, seasonal differences in the number of deceptive caches, differences in the number of deceptive caches in the presence of other animals (and depending on how close they stayed) and a frequency of interactions recorded per 5-min observations. The normality of data distribution was tested with the Shapiro–Wilk test (P < 0.05). Dunn’s test was done for post hoc analysis (Bonferroni-corrected P values). The analyses were done in Past 4.05 (Hammer et al. 2001) software.
Results
Feeding trials
Squirrels mostly cached obtained nuts (Table 1), and this happened most frequently in autumn (chi-square test, χ2 = 92.79, DF = 3, P < 0.0001). The number of feeding trials, when corvids were present (either from the start or joined the trial) and tried to steal nuts cached by red squirrels, changed seasonally and was highest in autumn and winter (chi-square test, χ2 = 55.05 DF = 3, P < 0.0001, Table 2). Nevertheless, the share of nuts that were attempted to be stolen from squirrels was similar in all seasons (chi-square test, χ2 = 2.15 DF=3, P > 0.05). Corvids were constantly present during 21% of all feeding trials (N = 58), and in those trials, they tried to pilfer almost every third nut obtained from the observer and cached by squirrels (29%, N = 825, Table S2).
Squirrels stole about 1% of cached nuts from other squirrels (N = 26), and all attempts were successful. They also mostly cached stolen nuts (88%, N = 24). Corvids more often ate (58%) than cached (14%) stolen nuts (N = 100). In the remaining cases, the way of handling stolen nuts was not assessed as corvids flew away.
Regardless of the presence or absence of corvids, the number of squirrels observed during the feeding trial increased (Fig. 1). The number of corvids was stable during the trial (Fig. 1a) and increased only if birds were not present from the very beginning (Fig. 1b).
The number of deceptive caches done by squirrels was assessed for 765 nuts obtained from an observer. On average, squirrels performed 2.86 deceptive caches (SE = 0.12, min 0, max 32) for each nut. Almost every fourth nut was cached without any deceptive caches (24%, N = 183). The mean number of deceptive caches did not differ between seasons (Kruskal–Wallis test: H = 5.062, DF = 3, P > 0.05). Also, the presence or absence of other animals did not affect the number of deceptive caches done by a squirrel (Kruskal–Wallis test: H = 3.478, DF = 2, P > 0.05).
Corvids stayed closer (X ± SE= 6.84 ± 0.47) to squirrels caching nuts than other squirrels (X ± SE = 9.7 ± 0.39, Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 33.43, DF = 1, P < 0.001). Nevertheless, distance of a corvid from a squirrel (i.e. 1–5 m, 6–10 m and 11–30 m) did not affect the number of deceptive caches. On the contrary, when another squirrel was the closest audience, the number of caches depended on how far it stayed. The number of deceptive caches was lower when the other squirrel was 1–5 m as compared to 11–30 m apart (Fig. 2).
Observations of groups of animals
Both squirrels and corvids spent most time foraging or caching, but the proportion of time dedicated to different activities differed (chi-square test, χ2 = 7186.1, DF = 2, P < 0.001) (Table 3). When squirrels interacted with other animals (both squirrels and corvids), they most often flew away. The other most frequent behaviour was chasing other animals away. On the contrary, in the case of corvids, flight was observed the least frequently. Corvids usually followed and chased other individuals or tried to steal their food (Table 4). Squirrels often interacted with people, i.e. most frequently they took food (Table 4). Crows followed or flew away from people, but such observations were very infrequent (i.e. on average 0.02 interactions per 5 min observations, min 0, max 2, while no interactions between rooks and people were observed. Squirrels interacted mostly with corvids, and less often with people or other squirrels. Corvids focused mostly on squirrels—they interacted with squirrels 2–3 times per each 5-min observation (Table 5).
Discussion
In this study, we focused on inter- and intraspecific interactions between red squirrels and corvids in the urban park and in relation to supplementary food offered by park visitors. Squirrels often interacted with people and took offered food, while corvids rather focused on squirrels, trying to steal obtained food. Despite this, the squirrel did not try to prevent corvids from stealing the food by performing more deceptive caches. They only reacted this way to their conspecifics.
During feeding trials, squirrels mostly cached obtained food, which was similar to other studies (Tamura et al. 1999; Kostrzewa and Krauze-Gryz 2020) and which suggests that they treated this as supplementary supplies (Shuttleworth 2000). Corvids, in turn, usually ate stolen food, which may point to the importance of this limited food source (review in Morand-Ferron et al. 2007, but see: Jokimäki et al. 2022). In general, corvids joined squirrels that were offered food. Yet, when other corvids were present at the start of the trial, new birds seemed to refrain from joining in. This may point to the intraspecific competition in an abundant urban population. They also seemed to be vividly interested in this food source, attempting to steal or stealing every third nut. On the contrary, red squirrels generally joined other squirrels during the trials, but they did not seem to be much interested in food obtained by other squirrels; they stole nuts only occasionally. Squirrels are likely to obtain nuts directly from numerous park visitors (Kostrzewa and Krauze-Gryz 2020; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021b), while for corvids (being often perceived as overabundant pests), this is rather unlikely. Instead of stealing nuts, squirrels seemed to observe their conspecifics to take an opportunity if supplementary food was being offered. It suggests that this (especially to some individuals, Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021b) is a valuable source of food, and squirrels may rely on it. It is assumed that animals that cache food can lose up to 30% of their storage per day to pilferers (see review Vander Wall and Jenkins 2003). In the light of this, attempts of stealing caches of red squirrels by corvids can be assumed high. This may be due to the fact that corvids are very numerous in the park, but it also suggests that corvids learned to utilise food caches of red squirrels and points to their high cognitive abilities (Morand-Ferron et al. 2007). It was beyond the focus of this experiment, but corvids may have also remembered areas where nuts were cached with the aim to come back later using specific observational spatial memory (Watanabe and Clayton 2007; Scheid et al. 2008; Grodzinski et al. 2012). This may explain why in some feeding trials, corvids (despite being present) did not try to steal nuts.
We assumed that stealing food by corvids would be more frequent during winter and spring when corvids mostly search for food in urban parks (Luniak et al. 2001). However, in this study, the proportion of nuts stolen by corvids remained the same throughout the year. That suggests that anthropogenic food can play an important role in corvids’ diet regardless of season.
Squirrels can change their caching behaviour when other animals are present in aim to lower the risk of stealing food (Leaver et al. 2007; Hopewell et al. 2008; Steele et al. 2008). Interestingly, in our study, we did not notice changes in the caching behaviour (i.e. the number of deceptive caches) with the presence of either conspecifics or corvids. During all seasons, the mean number of deceptive caches was similar; despite in autumn and winter, the proportion of feeding trials with corvids present was much higher than in other seasons. In another study, grey squirrels were shown to modify their caching behaviour (by turning back) when other squirrels were present. At the same time, they did not respond to the presence of corvids as this strategy would not be effective with corvids’ ability to fly and observe from the height (Leaver et al. 2007). We observed that corvids kept closer to squirrels caching nuts than other squirrels. Yet, the distance of a corvid from a squirrel did not affect the number of deceptive caches. According to Stapanian and Smith (1984), scatter hoarding minimalizes food stealing by birds, as birds have a weak sense of smell. On the contrary, when another squirrel was the closest audience, its distance affected the number of deceptive caches. In a similar study on grey squirrels, they made more deceptive caches, when conspecifics were up to 20 m (Steele et al. 2008). Yet, in our case, the number of deceptive caches differed mostly when other squirrels were very close and at a farther distance. This may suggest that with another squirrel being very close (like up to 5 m in our case), the chances of protecting the cache were slight, so the host did not invest much time in handling the nut. Also, this might have been unprofitable; as in our test, new nuts were offered just after the previous one was taken. Moreover, all reported trials of reburying food cached by conspecifics were successful which means that red squirrels were not deceived by deceptive caches. This stays in contrast to the findings of another study, where grey squirrels looked for food in deceptive caches and were deceived by conspecifics (Steele et al. 2008).
All of the observed animals spent most time foraging. Indeed, in the case of squirrels, this is the dominant activity on which they spent from about half (Shuttleworth 2000) to even 80% of their daily activity time (Wauters et al. 1992). Interspecific and intraspecific interactions accounted for only 3% of the time in the case of squirrels but as much as 16% in the case of corvids. Corvids most often interacted with squirrels (i.e. they chased squirrels or followed them while they foraged) and very seldom with people. During our study, we never saw people giving nuts to corvids, as it was seen elsewhere in Poland (Jadczyk et al. 2013). On the contrary, park visitors mostly tried to whisk corvids away while feeding squirrels. This shows that corvids adjusted to this situation of limited human tolerance and focused on thieving food that squirrels obtained from people, rather than trying to get it directly.
Squirrels rarely interacted with other squirrels, more often with corvids or people. With corvids mostly agonistic interactions were recorded, i.e. flight or chasing away corvids during hoarding food. Squirrels, as scatter hoarders, are thought not to invest much energy in cache protection (Brockmann and Barnard 1979; Steele et al. 2008), but in some cases, it is more beneficial to protect the cache than collect more food items in time (Hopewell et al. 2008). On the contrary, when squirrels interacted with people, they mostly attempted to obtain food. Indeed, supplementary food can play important role in squirrels’ diet (Shuttleworth 2000; Magris and Gurnell 2002; Babińska-Werka and Żółw 2008; Bosch and Lurz 2012; Krauze-Gryz and Gryz 2015; Reher et al. 2016; Jokimäki et al. 2017; Krauze-Gryz et al. 2021a) and can have an impact on their demographics (Magris and Gurnell 2002).
The results presented here need to be treated with some caution—the study was conducted in one park and with non-marked animals some of them could have participated in the study more than once. However, the study site was big (almost 80 ha), with a very abundant population of squirrels and corvids, and the study was conducted in a way which minimised the possibility of testing the same animal twice in a short time. A similar study conducted in the future should involve more localities (with varying abundance of the two species and with varying natural food base and importance of supplementary food source) and encompass a longer period (as winter conditions and food base availability are not stable) to better understand how animals cope with the availability of new human-provided food sources in urban habitats. Another weakness of our study is that it refers only to a single year. Food availability and abundance of red squirrels and corvids may be different during the years; thus, inter- and intraspecific interactions may also be variable.
Overall, we showed that corvids can be food competitors and kleptoparasites for red squirrels. Red squirrels, with whom people often have affinity relationships, benefited from direct supplementary feeding and often interacted with people. Corvids, in turn, learnt how to steal human-delivered nuts from squirrels instead of trying to get it directly. This may be an evidence of how animals adapt to urban habitats and how the presence of anthropogenic food influences their feeding strategies.
References
Anderson JJ (2012) Distribution and foraging behavior of ground and tree squirrels in an urban environment. California State University, Fresno
Babińska-Werka J, Żółw M (2008) Urban populations of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Warsaw. Ann Zool Fenn 45:270–276
Baker PJ, Harris S (2007) Urban mammals: what does the future hold? An analysis of the factors affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain. Mamm Rev 37:297–315
Beliniak A, Gryz J, Klich D, Jasińska K, Krauze-Gryz D (2022) Body condition and breeding of urban red squirrels: comparison of two populations affected by different levels of urbanization. Animals 12(23):3246
Beliniak A, Krauze-Gryz D, Jasińska K, Jankowska K, Gryz J (2021) Contrast in daily activity patterns of red squirrels inhabiting urban park and urban forest. Hystrix It J Mamm 32(2):159–164
Benmazouz I, Jokimäki J, Lengyel S, Juhász L, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki M-L, Kardos G, Paládi P, Kövér L (2021) Corvids in urban environments: a systematic global literature review. Animals 11(11):3226
Bosch S, Lurz PW (2012) The Eurasian red squirrel: Sciurus vulgaris. Westarp Wissenschaften
Brockmann HJ, Barnard CJ (1979) Kleptoparasitism in birds. Anim Behav 27:487–514
Clayton N, Emery N (2005) Corvid cognition. Current Biol 15:PR80–PR81
Dally JM, Clayton NS, Emery NJ (2006) The behaviour and evolution of cache protection and pilferage. Anim Behav 72:13–23
De Kort SR, Clayton NS (2006) An evolutionary perspective on caching by corvids. Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 27:417–423
Ens BJ, Esselink P, Zwarts L (1990) Kleptoparasitism as a problem of prey choice: a study on mudflat-feeding curlews, Numenius arquata. Anim Behav 39:219–230
Francis RA, Chadwick MA (2012) What makes a species synurbic? Appl Geogr 32:514–521
García-Arroyo M, Gómez-Martínez MA, MacGregor-Fors I (2023) Litter buffet: on the use of trash bins by birds in six boreal urban settlements. Avian Res 14:100094
Grodzinski U, Watanabe A, Clayton NS (2012) Peep to pilfer: what scrub-jays like to watch when observing others. Anim Behav 89:1253–1260
Gryz J, Krauze D, Goszczyński J (2008) The small mammals of Warsaw as inferred from tawny owl (Strix aluco) pellet analyses. Ann Zool Fenn 45(4):281–285
Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paleont Electr 4(1):9
Hopewell LJ, Leaver LA, Lea SEG (2008) Effects of competition and food availability on travel time in scatter-hoarding gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Behav Ecol 19:1143–1149
Iyengar EV (2008) Kleptoparasitic interactions throughout the animal kingdom and a re-evaluation, based on participant mobility, of the conditions promoting the evolution of kleptoparasitism. Biol J Linn Soc 93:745–762
Jackowiak M, Gryz J, Jasińska K, Brach M, Bolibok L, Kowal P, Krauze-Gryz D (2021) Colonization of Warsaw by the red fox Vulpes vulpes in the years 1976–2019. Sci Rep 11(1):13931
Jadczyk P, Drzeniecka-Osiadacz A, Protection A (2013) Feeding strategy of wintering rooks Corvus frugilegus L. in urban habitats. Polish J Ecol 61:587–596
Jayne K, Lea SEG, Leaver LA (2015) Behavioural responses of eastern grey squirrels, Sciurus carolinensis, to cues of risk while foraging. Behav Processes 116:53–61
Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML, Suhonen J (2022) Long-term winter population trends of corvids in relation to urbanization and climate at northern latitudes. Animals 12(14):1820
Jokimäki J, Selonen V, Lehikoinen A, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML (2017) The role of urban habitats in the abundance of red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris, L.) in Finland. Urban For Urban Green 27:100–108
Jokimäki J, Suhonen J (1998) Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban environments. Landsc Urban Plan 39:253–263
Kopij G (2014) Distribution and abundance of the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris in an urbanised environment. Acta Musei Silesiae Sci Nat 63:255–262
Kostrzewa A, Krauze-Gryz D (2020) The choice and handling of supplemental food by red squirrels in an urban park. Behav Processes 178:104153
Kövér L, Gyüre P, Balogh P, Huettmann F, Lengyel S, Juhász L (2015) Recent colonization and nest site selection of the hooded crow (Corvus corone cornix L.) in an urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 133:78–86
Krauze-Gryz D, Gryz J (2015) A review of the diet of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in different types of habitats. In: Shuttleworth CM, Lurz PW, Hayward M (eds) Red squirrels: ecology, conservation & management in Europe: 39–50, England
Krauze-Gryz D, Gryz J, Brach M (2021a) Spatial organization, behaviour and feeding habits of red squirrels: differences between an urban park and an urban forest. J Zool 315:69-78
Krauze-Gryz D, Gryz J, Klich D, Brach M (2021b) Same yet different—individual red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) react differently to human presence in an urban park. Hystrix It J Mamm 32:76–81
Kruczek Z (2015) Analiza frekwencji w polskich atrakcjach turystycznych. Turyzm 25:47–55
Leaver LA, Hopewell L, Caldwell C, Mallarky L (2007) Audience effects on food caching in grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis): evidence for pilferage avoidance strategies. Anim Cogn 10:23–27
Luniak M (1981) The birds of the park habiats in Warsaw. Acta Ornithol 18:335–370
Luniak M (2004) Synurbization: adaptation of animal wildlife to urban development. Proc 4th Int Urban Wildl Symp 50–55
Luniak M, Kozłowski P, Nowicki W, Plit J (2001) Atlas Warszawy, zeszyt 8, Ptaki Warszawy: 1962-2000. [Atlas of Warsaw, issue 8, Birds of Warsaw: 1962-200]. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw
Magris L, Gurnell J (2002) Population ecology of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in a fragmented woodland ecosystem on the Island of Jersey, Channel Islands. J Zool 256(1):99–112
Marzluff JM, Neatherlin E (2006) Corvid response to human settlements and campgrounds: causes, consequences, and challenges for conservation. Biol Conserv 130(2):301–314
McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176
Morand-Ferron J, Sol D, Lefebvre L (2007) Food stealing in birds: brain or brawn? Anim Beh 74(6):1725–1734
Plaza PI, Lambertucci SA (2017) How are garbage dumps impacting vertebrate demography, health, and conservation? Glob Ecol Conserv 12:9–20
Reher S, Dausmann KH, Warnecke L, Turner JM (2016) Food availability affects habitat use of Eurasian red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in a semi-urban environment. J Mammal 97:1543–1554
Rézouki C, Dozières A, Le Cœur C, Thibault S, Pisanu B, Chapuis J-L, Baudry E (2014) A viable population of the European red squirrel in an urban park. PLoS ONE 9(8):e105111
Rice-Oxley SB (1993) Caching behaviour of red squirrels Sciurus vulgaris under conditions of high food availability. Mamm Rev 23(2):93–100
Rykaczewska S (2013) Characteristics of the urban population of red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) based on selected parks of Warsaw. MSc thesis. Warsaw University of Life Sciences
Samia DS, Blumstein DT, Díaz M, Grim T, Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Jokimäki J, Tätte K, Markó G, Tryjanowski P, Møller AP (2017) Rural-urban differences in escape behavior of European birds across a latitudinal gradient. Front Ecol Evol 5:66
Scheid C, Bugnyar T, Lorenz K, Grünau F (2008) Short-term observational spatial memory in Jackdaws (Corvus monedula) and Ravens (Corvus corax). Anim Cogn 11:691–698
Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS (2008) Eavesdropping squirrels reduce their future value of food under the perceived presence of cache robbers. Am Nat 171:386–393
Shuttleworth C (2000) The foraging behaviour and diet of red squirrels Sciurus vulgaris receiving supplemental feeding. Wildlife Biol 6:149–156
Stapanian MA, Smith CC (1984) Density-dependent survival of scatterhoarded nuts: an experimental approach. Ecol 65:1387–1396
Steele MA, Halkin SL, Smallwood PD, McKenna TJ, Mitsopoulos K, Beam M (2008) Cache protection strategies of a scatter-hoarding rodent: do tree squirrels engage in behavioural deception? Anim Behav 75:705–714
Szwed M, Pińskwar I, Kundzewicz ZW, Graczyk D, Mezghani A (2017) Changes of snow cover in Poland. Acta Geophys 65(1):65–76
Tamura N, Hashimoto Y, Hayashi F (1999) Optimal distances for squirrels to transport and hoard walnuts. Anim Behav 58:635–642
Thompson DBA (1986) The economics of kleptoparasitism: optimal foraging, host and prey selection by gulls. Anim Behav 34:1189–1205
Tomczyk AM, Bednorz E, Szyga-Pluta K (2021) Changes in air temperature and snow cover in winter in Poland. Atmosphere 12(1):68
Tryjanowski P, Skórka P, Sparks TH, Biaduń W, Brauze T, Hetmański T, Martyka R, Indykiewicz P, Myczko Ł, Kunysz P, Kawa P, Czyż S, Czechowski P, Polakowski M, Zduniak P, Jerzak L, Janiszewski T, Goławski A, Duduś L, Nowakowski JJ, Wuczyński A, Wysocki D (2015) Urban and rural habitats differ in number and type of bird feeders and in bird species consuming supplementary food. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(19):15097–15103
Uchida K, Suzuki K, Shimamoto T, Yanagawa H, Koizumi I (2016) Seasonal variation of flight initiation distance in Eurasian red squirrels in urban versus rural habitat. J Zool 298:225–231
Vander Wall SB (1990) Food hoarding in animals. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Vander Wall SB, Jenkins SH (2003) Reciprocal pilferage and the evolution of food-hoarding behavior. Behav Ecol 14:656–667
Verbeylen G, Wauters LA, De Bruyn L, Matthysen E (2009) Woodland fragmentation affects space use of Eurasian red squirrels. Acta Oecol 35:94–103
Watanabe S, Clayton NS (2007) Observational visuospatial encoding of the cache locations of others by western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica). J Ethol 25:271–279
Wauters L, Swinnen C, Dhondt AA (1992) Activity budget and foraging behaviour of red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in coniferous and deciduous habitats. J Zool 227:71–86
Wauters LA, Casale P (1996) Long-term scatterhoarding by Eurasian red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). J Zool 238(2):195–207
Wauters LA, Dhondt AA (1987) Activity budget and foraging behaviour of the Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758) in a coniferous habitat. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkd 52:341–353
Wist B, Stolter C, Dausmann KH (2022) Sugar addicted in the city: impact of urbanisation on food choice and diet composition of the Eurasian red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris). J Urban Ecol 8(1):1–12
Żmihorski M, Halba R, Mazgajski TD (2010) Long-term spatio-temporal dynamics of corvids wintering in urban parks of Warsaw, Poland. Ornis Fenn 87:61–68
https://dane.imgw.pl/. Accessed 18 Oct 2023
https://stat.gov.pl/. Accessed 18 Oct 2023
https://wot.waw.pl/wiedza/. Accessed 28 Jun 2021
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jukka Jokimäki and an anonymous Reviewer for their valuable comments on the manuscript.
Availability of data and material
Data will be available on request.
Code availability
Not applicable
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by AB; analysis by DK-G and AB. DK-G supervised the study. The first draft of the manuscript was written, and the final version was reviewed by AB and DK-G. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The study did not require any approvals as this was based on observations of animals and involved no handling of animals.
Consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 15 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Beliniak, A., Krauze-Gryz, D. Who gets the treat: Interspecific interactions between red squirrels and corvids in an urban park. acta ethol 27, 65–74 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-023-00432-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-023-00432-6