Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T05:57:42.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increased risk of predation increases mobbing intensity in tropical birds of French Guiana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2015

Vallo Tilgar  and
Kadri Moks
Vallo Tilgar*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Vanemuise Street 46, Tartu 51014, Estonia
Kadri Moks
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Vanemuise Street 46, Tartu 51014, Estonia
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Stressful environments have been suggested to enhance cooperative behaviours in animal communities. Prey animals living in risky environments can also increase long-term benefits by cooperating with neighbours, such as collectively harassing predators. However, empirical studies have rarely tested this prediction in the wild. In this experimental study we explored whether the perceived predation risk influences cooperative mobbing behaviour in tropical forest birds in French Guiana. The predation risk was increased by 5-d-long presentation of visual and acoustic stimuli of pygmy-owls in 24 locations. In order to examine whether mobbing response can vary in relation to the abundance of local predators, we used the Amazonian pygmy-owl (Glaucidium hardyi) as a common predator and the ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum) as a rare predator in the study area. Our results showed that repeated predator-presentations increased mobbing response over time for the rarer owl species, while this effect was not significant for the common owl species. No effect of repeated presentations of either pygmy-owl species was found on the latency of mobbing. Moreover, mobbing latency was shorter and mobbing response was stronger for the common predator species, the Amazonian pygmy-owl. This study provides experimental evidence that birds exhibit stronger mobbing responses when the predator is locally abundant, while repeated encounters can be perceived as more dangerous when the predator is rare.

Keywords

cooperationmobbing behaviourplaybackpredation riskpygmy-owltropical birds
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 243 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ANDRAS, P., ROBERTS, G. & LAZARUS, J. 2003. Environmental risk, cooperation and communication complexity. Pp. 49–65 in Alonso, E. K. D. (ed.). Adaptive agents and multi-agent systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
BIZE, P., DIAZ, C. & LINDSTRÖM, J. 2012. Experimental evidence that adult antipredator behaviour is heritable and not influenced by behavioural copying in a wild bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279:1380–1388.Google Scholar
ČAPEK, M., POŽGAYOVÁ, M., PROCHÁZKA, P. & HONZA, M. 2010. Repeated presentations of the common cuckoo increase nest defense by the Eurasian reed warbler but do not induce it to make recognition errors. Condor 112:763–769.Google Scholar
CARO, T. 2005. Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 591 pp.Google Scholar
COLEMAN, R. M. 1987. Does experience with predators affect parental investment? Auk 104:91–792.Google Scholar
COLLIAS, N. E. & COLLIAS, E. C. 1978. Group territory, cooperative breeding in birds, and a new dominance factor. Animal Behaviour 26:308–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRESSWELL, W. 1994. Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa totanus. Animal Behaviour 47:433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CURIO, E. 1978. The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 48:175–183.Google Scholar
CURIO, E. & REGELMANN, K. 1985. The behavioural dynamics of Great Tits (Parus major) approaching a predator. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 69:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CURIO, E. & REGELMANN, K. 1986. Predator harassment implies a real deadly risk: a reply to Hennessy. Ethology 72:75–78.Google Scholar
DUCA, C. & MARINI, M. Â. 2014. Territorial system and adult dispersal in a cooperative-breeding tanager. The Auk 131:32–40.Google Scholar
DUCA, C., GUERRA, T. J. & MARINI, M. Â. 2006. Territory size of three Antbirds (Aves, Passeriformes) in an Atlantic Forest fragment in southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23:692–698.Google Scholar
EMLEN, S. T. 1982. The evolution of helping. I. An ecological constraints model. American Naturalist 119:29–39.Google Scholar
FLASSKAMP, A. 1994. The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. V. An experimental test of the ‘move on’ hypothesis. Ethology 96:322–333.Google Scholar
FORSMAN, J. T. & MÖNKKÖNEN, M. 2001. Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Animal Behaviour 62:1067–1073.Google Scholar
FRAGA, R. 2011. Green Oropendola (Psarocolius viridis). Pp. 754–755 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.). Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 16. Tanagers to New World Blackbirds. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.Google Scholar
GODIN, J.-G., CLASSON, L. J. & ABRAHAMS, M. V. 1988. Group vigilance and shoal size in a small characin fish. Behaviour 104:29–40.Google Scholar
GRIFFEN, A. S., BLUMSTEIN, D. T. & EVANS, C. S. 2000. Training captive-bred or translocated animals to avoid predators. Conservation Biology 14:1317–1326.Google Scholar
HAMILTON, W. D. 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology 31:295–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HILTY, S. L. 2003. Birds of Venezuela. Second edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 878 pp.Google Scholar
HILTY, S. 2011a. Fulvous Shrike-tanager (Lanio fulvus). Pp. 182–183 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.). Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 16. Tanagers to New World Blackbirds. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.Google Scholar
HILTY, S. 2011b. Purple Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes caeruleus). Pp. 251–252 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.). Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 16. Tanagers to New World Blackbirds. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.Google Scholar
HOLT, D. W., BERKLEY, R., DEPPE, C., ENRÍQUEZ ROCHA, P. L., OLSEN, P. D., PETERSEN, J. L., RANGEL SALAZAR, J. L., SEGARS, K. P. & WOOD, K. L. 1999. Amazonian Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium hardyi). Pp. 216–217 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (eds.). Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 5. Barn owls to Hummingbirds. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.Google Scholar
KIKUCHI, D. W. 2009. Terrestrial and understory insectivorous birds of a Peruvian cloud forest: species richness, abundance, density, territory size and biomass. Journal of Tropical Ecology 25:523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KNIGHT, R. L. & TEMPLE, S. A. 1986. Nest defence in the American goldfinch. Animal Behaviour 34:887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRAMS, I., BĒRZIŊŠ, A. & KRAMA, T. 2009. Group effect in nest defence behavior of breeding pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Animal Behaviour 77:513–517.Google Scholar
KRAMS, I., BĒRZIŊŠ, A., KRAMA, T., WHEATCROFT, D., IGAUNE, K. & RANTALA, M. J. 2010. The increased risk of predation enhances cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277:513–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KROODSMA, D. E. 1989. Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Animal Behaviour 37:600–609.Google Scholar
LIMA, S. L. 2002. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LIMA, S. L. 2009. Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biological Reviews 84:485–513.Google Scholar
MONTGOMERIE, R. D. & WEATHERHEAD, P. J. 1988. Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Quarterly Review of Biology 63:167–187.Google Scholar
MORI, K. & SAITO, Y. 2004. Variation in social behavior within a spider mite genus, Stigmaeopsis (Acari: Tetranychidae). Behavioral Ecology 16:232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOTTA-JUNIOR, J. C. 2007. Ferruginous Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum) predation on a mobbing Fork-tailed Flycatcher (Tyrannus savanna) in south-east Brazil. Biota Neotropica 7:321–324.Google Scholar
NEWTON, I. 1986. The Sparrowhawk. T. & A.D. Poyser, Calton. 396 pp.Google Scholar
NOCERA, J. J. & RATCLIFFE, L. M. 2010. Migrant and resident birds adjust antipredator behaviour in response to social information accuracy. Behavioral Ecology 21:121–128.Google Scholar
NOCERA, J. J., TAYLOR, P. D. & RATCLIFFE, L. M. 2008. Inspection of mob-calls as sources of predator information: response of migrant and resident birds in the Neotropics. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 62:1769–1777.Google Scholar
PICMAN, J., LEONARD, M. & HORN, A. 1988. Antipredation role of clumped nesting by marsh-nesting red-winged blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22:9–15.Google Scholar
PULLIAM, H. R. 1973. On the advantages of flocking. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38:419–422.Google Scholar
RYTKÖNEN, S. & SOPPELA, M. 1995. Vicinity of sparrowhawk nest affects willow tit nest defense. Condor 97:1074–1078.Google Scholar
SANDOVAL, L. & WILSON, D. R. 2012. Local predation pressure predicts the strength of mobbing responses in tropical birds. Current Zoology 58:781–790.Google Scholar
SNOW, D. W. 2004. White-crowned Manakin (Dixiphia pipra). Pp. 150–151 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.). Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 9. Cotingas to Pipits and Wagtails. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.Google Scholar
TEMPLETON, C. N., GREENE, E. & DAVIS, K. 2005. Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TILGAR, V. & KIKAS, K. 2009. Is parental risk taking negatively related to the level of brood reduction? Animal Behaviour 77:43–47.Google Scholar
TVARDIKOVÁ, K. & FUCHS, R. 2012. Tits recognize the potential dangers of predators and harmless birds in feeder experiments. Journal of Ethology 30:157–165.Google Scholar