Abstract
Imprinting plays a key role in the development of species recognition, with young imprinting upon the morphological characters of their parents. However, the potential role that cultural transmission might play in species recognition remains largely uninvestigated. Great tits (Parus major) and blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) do not normally perceive each other as sexual competitors or potential partners. However, after reciprocal interspecific cross-fostering, both species may perceive individuals of the foster species as potential rivals or mates. Although the experience of being raised by heterospecifics clearly has affected the species recognition of cross-fostered birds, some of them breed naturally with conspecifics. The offspring of such cross-fostered birds (OCF) are hence raised by parents that look like ordinary conspecifics but display deviant species recognition as compared to controls in terms of aggressive response towards rivals. Comparing the aggressive behavior of OCF, cross-fostered birds and controls towards territorial intruders may thus help tease apart the influence of morphological vs behavioral cues of parents in the development of offspring species recognition. To this end, we compared birds from all three treatments with respect to their aggressive response to territorial intruders of both species during the breeding season. OCF and controls did not differ in their pattern of response towards heterospecific and conspecific stimuli. Compared to cross-fostered birds, OCF and controls showed less aggression towards heterospecific intruders, while the response towards conspecific intruders did not differ between treatments. These results demonstrate that both tit species imprint on the morphological characters of their parents, but that parental behavior is not important for the development of species recognition in terms of aggressive response towards territorial intruders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Böhner J (1983) Song learning in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata): selectivity in the choice of a tutor and accuracy of song copies. Anim Behav 31:231–237
Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (1995) Bird song. Biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Colegrave N, Ruxton GD (2003) Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests than are power calculations. Behav Ecol 14:446–450
Colquhoun MK (1942) Notes on the social behaviour of blue tits. Br Birds 35:234–240
Drent PJ (1984) Mortality and dispersal in summer and its consequences for the density of great tits Parus major at the onset of autumn. Ardea 72:127–162
Freeberg TM (1996) Assortative mating in captive cowbirds is predicted by social experience. Anim Behav 52:1129–1142
Freeberg TM (1998) The cultural transmission of courtship patterns in cowbirds, Molothrus ater. Anim Behav 56:1063–1073
Freeberg TM (2000) Culture and courtship in vertebrates: a review of social learning and transmission of courtship systems and mating patterns. Behav Process 51:177–192
Goodbody IM (1952) The post-fledging dispersal of juvenile titmice. Br Birds 45:279–285
Gottlieb G (1991) Social induction of malleability in ducklings. Anim Behav 41:953–962
Grant BR, Grant PR (1996) Cultural inheritance of song and its role in the evolution of Darwin’s finches. Evolution 50:2471–2487
Grant PR, Grant BR (1997) Hybridization, sexual imprinting, and mate choice. Am Nat 149:1–28
Hansen BT, Slagsvold T (2003) Rival imprinting—interspecifically cross-fostered tits defend their territories against heterospecific intruders. Anim Behav 65:1117–1123
Hartley PHT (1953) An ecological study of the feeding habits of the English titmice. J Anim Ecol 22:261–288
Hauber ME, Russo SA, Sherman PW (2001) A password for species recognition in a brood-parasitic bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1041–1048
Hess EH (1973) Imprinting. Early experience and the developmental psychobiology of attachment. Van Nostrand, New York
Hinde RA (1952) The behaviour of the great tit (Parus major) and some other related species. Behaviour 2:1–207 (Suppl)
Immelmann K (1972) Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Adv Stud Behav 4:147–174
Immelmann K (1975) Ecological significance of imprinting and early learning. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6:15–37
Johannessen LE, Slagsvold T, Hansen BT (2006) Effects of social rearing conditions on song structure and repertoire size: experimental evidence from the field. Anim Behav 72:83–95
Kendrick KM, Hinton MR, Atkins K, Haupt MA, Skinner JD (1998) Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature 395:229–230
Kluijver HN (1951) The population ecology of the great tit. Parus m. major L. Ardea 39:1–135
Körner KE, Lütjens O, Parzefall J, Schlupp I (1999) The role of experience in mating preferences of the unisexual Amazon molly. Behaviour 136:257–268
Lorenz KZ (1937) The companion in the bird’s world. Auk 54:245–273
Miller RG (1981) Simultaneous statistical inference. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Perrins CM (1979) British tits. Collins, London
R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
Riebel K (2003) The “mute” sex revisited: vocal production and perception learning in female songbirds. Adv Stud Behav 33:49–86
Saitou T (1978) Ecological study of social organization in the great tit, Parus major L. I. Basic structure of the winter flocks. Jpn J Ecol 28:199–214
Slagsvold T, Hansen BT (2001) Sexual imprinting and the origin of obligate brood parasitism in birds. Am Nat 158:354–367
Slagsvold T, Wiebe KL (2007) Learning the ecological niche. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:19–23
Slagsvold T, Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Lifjeld JT (2002) Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1449–1455
ten Cate C, Bateson P (1989) Sexual imprinting and a preference for “supernormal” partners in Japanese quail. Anim Behav 38:356–357
ten Cate C, Vos DR (1999) Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv Stud Behav 28:1–31
ten Cate C, Vos DR, Mann N (1993) Sexual imprinting and song learning: two of one kind? Neth J Zool 43:34–45
ten Cate C, Verzijden MN, Etman E (2006) Sexual imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Curr Biol 16:1128–1132
Verhulst S, Hut RA (1996) Post-fledging care, multiple breeding and the costs of reproduction in the great tit. Anim Behav 51:957–966
Vos DR (1995) The role of sexual imprinting for sex recognition in zebra finches: a difference between males and females. Anim Behav 50:645–653
Witte K, Sawka N (2003) Sexual imprinting on a novel trait in the dimorphic zebra finch: sexes differ. Anim Behav 65:195–203
Witte K, Hirschler U, Curio E (2000) Sexual imprinting on a novel adornment influences mate preferences in the Javanese mannikin Lonchura leucogastroides. Ethology 106:349–363
Ackowledgements
We thank everybody who has helped us in the field; the Vestgård family for permission to work on their premises; and Meta M. Landys, Ane Eriksen, and two anonymous referees for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The Research Council of Norway funded grants for LEJ and BTH. The study complies with Norwegian law, and was conducted under licenses from the Directorate for Nature Management and the National Animal Research Authority in Norway.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by M. Leonard
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hansen, B.T., Johannessen, L.E. & Slagsvold, T. No cultural transmission of species recognition between parents and offspring in free-living great tits and blue tits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61, 1203–1209 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0350-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0350-1