Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Group size modulates time budget and foraging efficiency in captive Skylarks, Alauda arvensis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Ornithology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Skylarks (Alauda arvensis) are known to adopt a typical aggregative behaviour during the wintering period. A further benefit is that individuals in larger groups can decrease the amount of time they spent being vigilant, while maintaining a high probability of predator detection. Using wild birds temporarily housed in outdoor aviaries, we investigated the influence of group size (1, 2 and 4 individuals) on individual time budget (vigilance vs. foraging), and the pecking (number of pecks) and intake rates (number of seeds consumed). Results showed that individuals reduced their vigilance and increased their pecking rate when group size increased. However, the intake rate was not maximised in the largest group suggesting that large flocks would negatively affect individual foraging efficiency. A consideration of the whole set of costs and benefits will be necessary before the adaptive value of group living in any species can be fully assessed.

Zusammenfassung

Gruppengröße beeinflusst den zeitlichen Aufwand und die Effizienz der Nahrungsaufnahme bei in Volieren gehaltenen Feldlerchen, Alauda arvensis

Feldlerchen (Alauda arvensis) sind für ihre typische Gruppenbildung während des Winters bekannt. Ein Vorteil dieses Verhaltens ist, dass innerhalb größerer Gruppen jedes einzelne Tier weniger Zeit dafür aufbringen muss, nach Feinden Ausschau zu halten, ohne dass dadurch die Chance leidet, Feinde frühzeitig zu entdecken. Mit zeitweise in Außenvolieren gehaltenen, wilden Vögeln untersuchten wir den Einfluss der Gruppengröße (1, 2 und 4 Individuen) auf den individuellen Zeitaufwand (Wachsamkeit vs. Nahrungsaufnahme), die Pick-Rate (Anzahl der Pickbewegungen) und die Nahrungsaufnahme (gemessen als Anzahl gefressener Körner). Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass bei wachsender Gruppengröße die Einzeltiere ihre Wachsamkeit reduzierten und die Pick-Rate erhöhten. Aber die Nahrungsaufnahme war in der größten Gruppe nicht am größten, was nahe legt, dass große Gruppen die Effizienz der Nahrungsaufnahme der Einzeltiere negativ beeinflussen könnte. Eine komplette Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse ist notwendig, um für eine Tierart den adaptiven Wert der Gruppenbildung für ein Einzeltier vollständig zu erfassen.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amita H, Kawamori A, Matsuschima T (2009) Social influences of competition on impulsive choices in domestic chicks. Biol Lett 6:183–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard CJ (1980) Flock feeding and time budgets in the house sparrow (Passer domesticis L.). Anim Behav 28:295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp G (1998) The effect of group size on mean food intake rate in birds. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 73:449–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp G (2008) What is the magnitude of the group size effect on vigilance? Behav Ecol 19:1361–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (1998) Re-examining safety in numbers: interactions between risk dilution and collective detection depend upon predator targeting behaviour. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 265:2021–2026

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertram BCR (1980) Vigilance and group size in ostriches. Anim Behav 28:278–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain DE, Crick HQP (1999) Population declines and reproductive performance of skylarks Alauda arvensis in different regions and habitats of the United Kingdom. Ibis 141:38–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Popul Biol 30:16–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell W (1994) Flocking is an affective anti-predation strategy in redshank, Tringa tetanus. Anim Behav 47:433–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolman PM (1995) The intensity of interference varies with resource density: evidence from a field study with snow buntings, Plectophenax nivalis. Oecologia 102:511–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev 64:13–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Juricic E, Kacelnik A (2004) Information transfer and gain in flocks: the effects of quality and quantity of social information at different neighbour distances. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:502–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Juricic E, Siller S, Kacelnik A (2004) Flock density, social foraging and scanning: an experiment with starlings. Behav Ecol 15:371–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Juricic E, Beauchamps G, Bastain B (2007) Group size and distance to neighbour effects on feeding and vigilance in brown headed cowbirds. Anim Behav 73:771–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RJ, Gregory RD, Gibbons DW, Marchant JH, Wilson JD, Baillie SR, Carter N (1995) Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain. Conserv Biol 9:1425–1441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauvin S, Giraldeau LA (2004) Netmeg manikins (Lonchura punctulata) reduce their feeding rates in response to simulated competition. Oecologia 139:150–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gillings S, Fuller R (2001) Habitat selection by skylarks Alauda arvensis wintering in Britain in 1997/98. Bird Study 48:293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CA, Giraldeau LA, Grant JWA (2001) The effect of handling time on interference among house sparrows foraging at different seed densities. Behaviour 138:597–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Davies NB (1996) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1990) The influence of models on the interpretation of vigilance. In: Bekoff M, Jamieson D (eds) Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behaviour : vol.2. Explanation, evolution and adaptation. Westview, Boulder, pp 246–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1995) Back to the basis of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect. Anim Behav 49:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Zollner PA, Bednekoff PA (1999) Predation, scramble competition, and the vigilance group size effect in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:110–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorcroft D, Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB, Wilson JD (2002) The selection of stubble fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. J Appl Ecol 39:535–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan T, Fernández-Juricic E (2007) The effects of predation risk, food abundance, and population size on group size of brownheaded cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Ethology 113:1173–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottoni EB (1996) Etholog 1.0: Ethological transcription tool for Windows. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 28:472–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor CJ, Broom M, Ruxton GD (2006) Antipredator vigilance in birds: modelling the “edge” effect. Math Biosci 199:79–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts G (1995) A real-time response of vigilance behaviour to changes in group size. Anim Behav 50:1371–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts G (1996) Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim Behav 51:1077–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (1999) The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sansom A, Cresswell W, Minderman J, Lind J (2008) Vigilance benefits and competition costs in groups : do individual redshanks gain an overall foraging benefit? Anim Behav 75:1869–1875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens PA, Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR, Sutherland WJ (2003) Predicting the response of farmland bird populations to changing food supplies. J Appl Ecol 40:970–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman RA, Goss-Custard J, Caldow RWG (1997) Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 66:692–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triplet P (1994) Stratégie alimentaire de l’huitrier-pie (Haematopus ostralegus) en Baie de Somme. Gibier faune sauvage, Game Wildl 11:235–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Triplet P, Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD (1999) Prey abundance and the strength of interference in a foraging shorebird. J Anim Ecol 68:254–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:1549–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez RA, Kacelnik A (2000) Foraging rate versus sociality in the starling Sturnus vulgaris. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:157–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whittingham MJ, Markland HM (2002) The influence of substrate on the functional response of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 130:637–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JD, Evans J, Browne SJ, King JR (1997) Territory distribution and breeding success of skylarks Alauda arvensis on organic and intensive farmland in southern England. J Appl Ecol 34:1462–1478

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Caule, J.M. Boutin, H. Lormée and E. Joyeux for assistance during fieldwork (bird trapping). Thanks also to X. Duchemin and N. Guillon for caring for the birds while in captivity, Dr A. Joris and P. Girardot for technical assistance with birds. We also thank M. Guillemain for his critical reading of the manuscript and two anonymous referees for their comments. T. Powolny is sponsored by a grant provided by ONCFS. Experiments were carried out in compliance with French legal requirements and with the permission of the national conservation authority (no. 79/2002/D/06).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage (ONCFS), 79360, Villiers en bois, France

    Thibaut Powolny & Cyril Eraud

  2. Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, Centre National de le Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), 79360, Villiers en bois, France

    Thibaut Powolny & Vincent Bretagnolle

Authors
  1. Thibaut Powolny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cyril Eraud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Bretagnolle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thibaut Powolny.

Additional information

Communicated by T. Friedl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Powolny, T., Eraud, C. & Bretagnolle, V. Group size modulates time budget and foraging efficiency in captive Skylarks, Alauda arvensis . J Ornithol 153, 485–490 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0764-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0764-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation