Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:59:59.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vigilance and neighbour distance in foraging flocks of red-billed choughs, Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2001

Antonio Rolando
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell'Uomo, Università di Torino, Italy
Riccardo Caldoni
Affiliation:
Centro Abruzzese di Ricerche Faunistiche, c/o WWF-Abruzzo, Pescara, Italy
Augusto De Sanctis
Affiliation:
Centro Abruzzese di Ricerche Faunistiche, c/o WWF-Abruzzo, Pescara, Italy
Paola Laiolo
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell'Uomo, Università di Torino, Italy
Get access

Abstract

Foraging flocks of red-billed choughs (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) were studied in the Gran Sasso National Park (Apennines, Central Italy) to assess the relevance of neighbour distance and group size upon vigilance, after controlling for other confounding variables (feeding frequency, air temperature and time of the day). Both partial correlation and multiple regression analyses clearly suggested that neighbour distance was the major determinant of the vigilant behaviour in the red-billed chough, even though group size would also exert a certain influence. As no significant correlation between the two variables was found, it can be assumed that the relationship between vigilance and neighbour distance is not spurious. Feeding frequencies were not significantly correlated with the other variables, except for temperature, for which a positive correlation was observed. Since the red-billed chough usually feeds on insects, which become more active and available as temperature increases, we suggest that the feeding frequency of the red-billed chough mostly depends on food availability. Our results are discussed in the framework of the hypotheses put forward to explain vigilance behaviour. The conclusion is that the ‘individual risk hypothesis’ explains the behaviour of the red-billed chough better than the ‘many eyes hypothesis’.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2001 The Zoological Society of London

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.)