Mobbing as a trade-off between safety and reproduction in a songbird

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1054-1060

  Berziņš, Arnis ^a   Krama, Tatjana ^a   Krams, Indrikis ^a,b   Freeberg, Todd M ^c   Kivleniece, Inese ^a   Kullberg, Cecilia ^d   Rantala, Markus J ^b  

^a DAUGAVPILS UNIVERSITY   (Latvia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^d STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

chaffinch; extrapair mating; mobbing behavior; predation risk

Indexed keywords

ALARM SIGNAL; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; BREEDING SEASON; COURTSHIP; EXTRA-PAIR COPULATION; MOBBING; PREDATION RISK; REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SONGBIRD; TRADE-OFF;

AVES; FRINGILLA; FRINGILLA COELEBS; PASSERI;

EID: 77955904383     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq104     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Andersson M, Wiklund CG. 1978. Clumping versus spacing out: experiments on nest predation in fieldfares (Turdus pilaris). Anim Behav. 26:1207-1212.
2. Andersson M, Wiklund CG, Rundgren H. 1981. Parental defence of offspring: a model and an example. Anim. Behav. 28:536-542.
3. Arnold KE. 2000. Group mobbing behaviour and nest defence in a cooperatively breeding Australian bird. Ethology. 106: 385-393.
4. Arnold KE, Owens IPF, Goldizen AW. 2005. Division of labour within cooperatively breeding groups. Behaviour. 142:1577-1590.
5. Bautista LM, Lane SJ. 2000. Coal tits increase evening body mass in response to tawny owl calls. Acta Ethol. 2:105-110.
6. Bernal XE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. Acoustic preferences and localization performance in blood-sucking flies (Corethrella coquillett) to tungara frog calls. Behav Ecol. 17:709-715.
7. Betts MG, Hadley AS, Doran PJ. 2005. Avian mobbing response is restricted by territory boundaries: experimental evidence from two species of forest warblers. Ethology. 111:821-835.
8. Birkhead TR, Burke T, Zann R, Hunter FM, Krupa AP. 1990. Extra-pair paternity and intra-specific brood parasitism in wild zebra finches Taeniophygia guttata, revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 13:271-275.
9. Birkhead TR, Møller AP. 1992. Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. London: Academic Press.
10. Brick O. 1998. Fighting behaviour, vigilance and predation risk in the cichlid fish Nannacara anomala. Anim Behav. 56:309-317.
11. Brown GP, Shine R. 2004. Effects of reproduction on the antipredator tactics of snakes (Tropidonophis mairii, Colubridae). Behav Ecol So-ciobiol. 56:257-262.
12. Budrys RR, Gegelevicius R. 2002. Research on defence behaviour in a common gull (Larus canus) colony during breeding. Acta Zool Litu. 12:10-17.
13. Candolin U. 1997. Predation risk affects courtship and attractiveness of competing threespine stickleback males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 41:81-87.
14. Carlisle TR. 1985. Parental response to brood size in a cichlid fish. Anim Behav. 33:234-238.
15. Clutton-Brock TH. 1991. The evolution of parental care. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
16. Collias NE, Collias EC. 1978. Group territory, dominance, co-operative breeding in birds, and a new factor. Anim Behav. 26:308-309.
17. Cooper WE, Perez-Mellado V. 2004. Tradeoffs between escape behavior and foraging opportunity by the Balearic lizard (Podarcis lilfordi). Herpetologica. 60:321-324.
18. Cowlishaw G, Lawes MJ, Lightbody M, Martin A, Pettifor R, Rowcliffe JM. 2004. A simple rule for the costs of vigilance: empirical evidence from a social forager. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 271:27-33.
19. Creutz G. 1955. Der trauerschnäpper (Muscicapa hypoleuca) (Pallas). Eine Populationsstudie. J Ornithol. 96:241-326.
20. Curio E. 1959. Verhaltensstudien am Trauerschnäpper; Beiträge zur ̈ Ethologie und Okologie von Muscicapa h. hypoleuca Pallas. Berlin (Germany): P. Parey.
21. Curio E. 1961a. Zur geographischen variation von verhaltensweisen. Vogelwelt. 82:33-47.
22. Curio E. 1961b. Rassenspezifisches Verhalten gegen einen Raubfeind. Experientia. 17:188.
23. Curio E. 1975. The functional organization of anti-predator behaviour in the pied flycatcher: a study of avian visual perception. Anim Behav. 23:1-115.
24. Curio E. 1978. The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. I. Teleo-nomic hypotheses and predictions. Z Tierpsychol. 48:175-183.
25. Curio E. 1987. Brood defence in the great tit: the influence of age, number and quality of young. Ardea. 75:35-42.
26. Curio E, Regelmann K. 1985. The behavioural dynamics of great tits (Parus major) approaching a predator. Z Tierpsychol. 69:3-18.
27. Dill LM, Hedrick AV, Fraser A. 1999. Male mating strategies under predation risk: do females call the shots? Behav Ecol. 10: 452-461.
28. Endler JA. 1987. Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav. 35: 1376-1385.
29. Farr JA. 1975. The role of predation in the evolution of social behavior of natural populations of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poe-ciliidae). Evolution. 29:151-158.
30. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Inkeröinen J. 1998. Heterospe-cific attraction and food resources in migrants' breeding patch selection in northern boreal forest. Oecologia. 115:278-286.
31. Forsman JT, Seppänen JT, Mönkkönen M. 2002. Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a potential competitor. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 269:1619-1623.
32. Frankenberg E. 1981. The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. IV. Alerting others and perceptual advertisement in blackbirds facing an owl. Z Tierpsychol. 55:97-118.
33. Glue DE. 1972. Bird prey taken by British owls. Bird Study. 19:91-96.
34. Godin JG, Dugatkin LA. 1996. Female mating preference for bold males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulate. Proc Natl Acad Sci\USA. 93:10262-10267.
35. Halupka K, Halupka L. 1997. The influence of reproductive season stage on nest defence by meadow pipits (Anthus pratensis). Ethol Ecol Evol. 9:89-98.
36. Hanski IK. 1994. Timing of copulations and mate guarding in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Ornis Fenn. 71:17-25.
37. Harvey PH, Greenwood PJ. 1978. Anti-predator defence strategies: some evolutionary problems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB, editors. Behavioural ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, p. 129-151.
38. Hendrichsen DK, Christiansen P, Nielsen EK, Dabelsteen T, Sunde P. 2006. Exposure affects the risk of an owl being mobbed\experi-mental evidence. J Avian Biol. 37:13-18.
39. Hinde RA. 1954. Factors gverning the canges in srength of a prtially inborn rsponse, as shown by the mobbing behaviour of the caffinch (Fringilla coelebs). II. The waning of the response. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 142:331-358.
40. Hogstad O. 1995. Alarm calling by willow tits, Parus montanus, as mate investment. Anim Behav. 49:221-225.
41. Houston A, McNamara JM. 1999. Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
42. Hurd CR. 1996. Interspecific attraction to the mobbing calls of black capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38: 287-292.
43. Jakobsson S, Brick O, Kullberg C. 1995. Escalated fighting behaviour incurs increased predation risk. Anim Behav. 49:235-239.
44. Kavaliers M, Choleris E, Colwell DD. 2001. Brief exposure to female odors "emboldens" male mice by reducing predator-induced behavioral and hormonal responses. Horm Behav. 40:497-509.
45. Komdeur J, Kraaijeveld-Smit F, Kraaijeveld K, Edelaar P. 1999. Explicit experimental evidence for the role of mate guarding in minimizing loss of paternity in the Seychelles warbler. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:2075-2081.
46. Korbut VV. 1989. Variability and stability of acoustical signalization of chaffinch in defence reactions. Zoologichesky Zhurnal. 68: 125-134.
47. Krams I, Krama T. 2002. Interspecific reciprocity explains mobbing behaviour of the breeding chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:2345-2350.
48. Krama T, Krams I. 2005. Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol. 16:37-40.
49. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K. 2006a. Alarm calls of wintering great tits Parus major: warning of mate, reciprocal altruism or a message to the predator? J Avian Biol. 37:131-136.
50. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K. 2006b. Mobbing behaviour: reciprocity based co-operation in breeding pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Ibis. 148:50-54.
51. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R. 2008. Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62: 599-605.
52. Krams I, Berzins A, Krama T. 2009. Group effect in nest defense of breeding pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav. 77: 513-517.
53. Krams I, Berzins A, Krama T, Wheatcroft D, Igaune K, Rantala MJ. 2010. The increased risk of predation enhances cooperation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277:513-518.
54. Lambrechts MM, Prieur B, Caizergues A, Dehorter O, Galan M-J, Perret P. 2000. Risk-taking restraints in a bird with reduced egg-hatching success. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267:333-338.
55. Lazarus J, Inglis IR. 1986. Shared and unshared parental investment, parent-offspring conflict and brood size. Anim. Behav. 34: 1791-1804.
56. Lima S. 1998. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience. 48:25-34.
57. Lima S. 2009. Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev. 84: 485-513.
58. Lima SL, Dill LM. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation\a review and prospectus. Can J Zool. 68:619-640.
59. Marler P. 1956. The voice of the chaffinch and its function as a language. Ibis. 98:231-261.
60. Martin J, López P. 1999. When to come out from a refuge: risk-sensitive and state-dependent decisions in an alpine lizard. Behav Ecol. 10: 487-492
61. Mart́n J, López P, Cooper WE Jr. 2003. When to come out from a refuge: balancing predation risk and foraging opportunities in an alpine lizard. Ethology. 109:77-87.
62. McGregor PK, Catchpole CK, Dabelsteen T, Falls JB, Fusani L, Gerhardt HC, Gilbert F, Horn AG, Klump GM, Kroodsma DE et al. 1992. Design of playback experiments: the Thornbridge Hall NATO ARW Consensus. In: McGregor PK, editor. Playback and studies of animal communication. Vol.228. New York: Plenum Press. p. 1-9.
63. Michl G, Török J, Garamszegi LZ, Tóth L. 2000. Sex-dependent risk taking in the collared flycatcher, Ficedula albicollis, when exposed to a predator at the nestling stage. Anim Behav. 59:623-628.
64. Mikkola H. 1983. Owls of Europe. Calton (UK): T & AD Poyser.
65. Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Niemi G, Montgomery K. 1997. Heterospecific attraction affects community structure and migrant abundances in northern breeding bird communities. Can J Zool. 75:2077-2083.
66. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ. 1988. Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol. 63:167-187.
67. Olendorf R, Getty R, Scribner K. 2004. Cooperative nest defence in red-winged blackbirds: reciprocal altruism, kinship or by-product mutualism? Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 271:177-182.
68. Onnebrink H, Curio E. 1991. Brood defense and age of young: a test of the vulnerability hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 29:61-68.
69. Ostreiher R. 2003. Is mobbing altruistic or selfish behaviour? Anim Behav. 66:145-149.
70. Page RA, Ryan MJ. 2008. The effect of signal complexity on localization performance in bats that localize frog calls. Anim Behav. 76: 761-769.
71. Palestis BG. 2005. Nesting stage and nest defense by common terns. Waterbirds. 28:87-94.
72. Pavel V, Bures S. 2001. Offspring age and nest defence: test of the feedback hypothesis in the meadow pipit. Anim Behav. 61: 297-303.
73. Picman J, Leonard M, Horn A. 1988. Antipredation role of clumped nesting by marsh-nesting red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Socio-biol. 22:9-15.
74. Poiani A, Yorke M. 1989. Predator harassment: more evidence of deadly risk. Ethology. 83:167-169.
75. Redondo T. 1989. Avian nest defence: theoretical models and evidence. Behaviour. 111:161-195.
76. Robinson SK. 1985. Coloniality in the yellow-rumped cacique as a defense against predators. Auk. 102:637-665.
77. Rytkönen S. 2002. Nest defence in great tits Parus major: support for parental investment theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52: 379-384.
78. Rytkönen S, Orell M, Koivula K. 1995. Pseudo Concorde fallacy in the willow tit? Anim Behav. 49:1017-1028.
79. Rytkönen S, Soppela M. 1995. Vicinity of sparrowhawk nest affects willow tit nest defence. Condor. 97:1074-1078.
80. Shalter MD. 1978. Effect of spatial context on the mobbing behaviour of pied flycatchers to a predator model. Anim Behav. 26: 1219-1221.
81. Sheldon BC. 1994. Sperm competition in the chaffinch: the role of the female. Anim Behav. 47:163-173.
82. Sheldon BC, Burke T. 1994. Copulation behavior and paternity in the chaffinch. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 34:149-156.
83. Sih A. 1980. Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science. 210:1041-1043.
84. Slagsvold T. 1984. The mobbing behaviour of the hooded crow Corvus corone cornix: anti-predator defence or self-advertisement? Fauna Nor Ser C. 7:127-131.
85. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Chicago (IL): Aldine. p. 136-179.