Flexibility in European starlings' use of social information: Experiments with decoys in different populations

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 80, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 965-973

  Rodriguez, Alexandra ^a   Hausberger, Martine ^b   Clergeau, Philippe ^c  

^a Ecology and Ecosystem Health   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

Author keywords

Biological invasion; Colonization; Decoy; European starling; Local enhancement; Social cue; Social information; Sturnus vulgaris

Indexed keywords

AGE CLASS; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; COLONIZATION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOOD AVAILABILITY; GROUP SIZE; HABITAT STRUCTURE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PASSERINE;

STURNIDAE; STURNUS VULGARIS;

EID: 78549289485     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Adret-Hausberger M., Cumming R.B. Social attraction to older birds by domestic chicks. Bird Behavior 1987, 7:44-46.
2. Bautista L.M., Tinbergen J., Wiersma P., Kacelnik A. Optimal foraging and beyond: how starlings cope with changes in food availability. American Naturalist 1998, 152:543-561.
3. Beauchamp G., Ruxton G. Harvesting resources in groups or alone: the case of renewing patches. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16:989-993.
4. Boyd R., Richerson P.J. An evolutionary model of social learning: the effects of spatial and temporal variation. Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Approaches 1988, 29-48. L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey. T. Zentall, B.G. Galef (Eds.).
5. Burger J. Social attraction in nesting least terns: effects of numbers, spacing, and pair bonds. Condor 1988, 90:575-582.
6. Cadieu J.C., Cadieu N., Lauga J. Local enhancement and seed choice in the juvenile canary, Serinus canarius. Animal Behaviour 1995, 50:793-800.
7. Castiglia G., Tabarrini G. Stazioni di nidificazione dello Storno. Uccelli d'Italia 1982, 7:93-104.
8. Chesler P. Maternal influence in learning by observation in kittens. Science 1969, 16:901-903.
9. Clayton D.A. Socially facilitated behaviour. Quarterly Review of Biology 1978, 53:373-391.
10. Clergeau, P. 1981. Comportements liés à l'alimentation de l'etourneau Sturnus vulgaris en Bretagne: rôle joué par certaines variables environnementales et sociales. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rennes 1.
11. Clergeau P. Attractivité et utilisation du milieu chez des étourneaux en alimentation. Oecologia Applicata 1982, 3:303-320.
12. Clergeau P. Mixed flocks feeding with starlings: an experimental field study in Western Europe. Bird Behavior 1990, 8:95-100.
13. Coussi-Korbel S., Fragaszy D.M. On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Animal Behaviour 1995, 50:1441-1453.
14. Crozier G., Gawlik D. The use of decoys as a research tool for attracting wading birds. Journal of Field Ornithology 2002, 74:53-58.
15. Danchin E., Giraldeau L., Valone T., Wagner R. Public information: from nosy neighbours to cultural evolution. Science 2004, 305:487-491.
16. Dindo M., Thierry B., Whiten A. Social diffusion of novel foraging methods in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:187-193.
17. Doligez B., Danchin E., Clobert J. Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 2002, 297:1168-1170.
18. Drent R., Swierstra P. Goose flocks and food finding: field experiments with barnacle geese in winter. Wildfowl 1977, 28:15-20.
19. Fancher J. A technique for making least tern decoys. Journal of Field Ornithology 1984, 55:241-243.
20. Extending the Linear Model with R. Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models 2006, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton. J.J. Faraway (Ed.).
21. Feare C. The Starling 1984, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22. Fernandez-Juricic E., Kacelnik A. Information transfer and gain in flocks: the effects of quality and quantity of social information at different neighbour distances. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2004, 55:502-511.
23. Fernandez-Juricic E., Jokimäki J., Chase M.J., Melado F., Toledano A., Mayo C., Martin B., Fresneda I., Martin V. Effects of opportunistic predation on anti-predator behavioural responses in a guild of ground foragers. Oecologia 2004, 140:183-190.
24. Galef B.G. Functions of learning about food: a casual analysis of effects of diet novelty on preference transmission. Animal Behaviour 1993, 46:247-265.
25. Galef B.G., Laland K.N. Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience 2005, 55:489-499.
26. Gotceitas V., Colgan P. Assessment of patch profitability and ideal free distribution. The significance of sampling. Behaviour 1991, 119:65-76.
27. Green M.C., Leberg P. Flock formation and the role of plumage colouration in Ardeidae. Canadian Journal of Zoology 2005, 83:683-693.
28. Guyomarc'h J.C. Ethologie 1995, Abrégés: Masson. 2nd ed.
29. Harvey W., Hindman L., Rhodes W. Vulnerability of Canada geese to taxidermy-mounted decoys. Journal of Wildlife Management 1995, 59:474-477.
30. Hazlet B., Burba A., Gherardi F., Acquistapace P. Invasive species of crayfish use a broader range of predation-risk cues than native species. Biological Invasions 2003, 5:223-228.
31. Inglis I.I., Isaacson A.J. The responses of dark-bellied brent geese to models of geese in various postures. Animal Behaviour 1977, 26:953-958.
32. Inman A.J., Krebs J. Predation and group living. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1987, 2:31-32.
33. Jackson A., Ruxton G. Toward an individual-level understanding of vigilance: the role of social information. Behavioral Ecology 2006, 17:532-538.
34. Jeffries D.S., Brunton D.H. Attracting endangered species to 'safe' habitats: responses of fairy terns to decoys. Animal Conservation 2001, 4:301-305.
35. Jiguet F., Bretagnolle V. Manipulating lek size and composition using decoys: an experimental investigation of lek evolution models. American Naturalist 2006, 168:758-768.
36. Kotliar N., Burger J. The use of decoys to attract least terns (Sterna antillarum) to abandoned colony sites in New Jersey. Colonial Waterbirds 1984, 7:134-138.
37. Martin L.B., Fitzgerald L. A taste for novelty in invading house sparrows, Passer domesticus. Behavioral Ecology 2005, 16:702-707.
38. Master T., Leiser J., Bennett K., Bretsch J., Wolfe H. Patch selection by snowy egrets. Waterbirds 2005, 28:220-224.
39. Mennechez G., Clergeau P. Effect of urbanisation on habitat generalists: starlings not so flexible?. Acta Oecologica 2006, 30:182-191.
40. Morgan D., Wass J., Innes J. Magpie interactions with other birds in New Zealand: results from a literature review and public survey. Notornis 2005, 52:61-74.
41. Parejo D., Danchin E., Avilés J. The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality?. Behavioral Ecology 2004, 16:96-105.
42. Parejo D., Pérez-Contreras T., Navarro C., Soler J.J., Avilés J.M. Spotless starlings rely on public information while visiting conspecific nests: an experiment. Animal Behaviour 2008, 75:483-488.
43. Pasquali R. Le colonie nidificanti di storno, Sturnus vulgaris, nell'Italia Centro-Meridionale. Rivista Italiana di Ornitologia Milano 1984, 54:221-229.
44. Pius S., Leberg P. Experimental assessment of the influence of gull-billed terns on nest site choice of black skimmers. Condor 2002, 104:174-177.
45. Podolsky H. Effectiveness of social stimuli in attracting Laysan albatross to new potential nesting sites. Auk 1990, 107:119-125.
46. Richard M.A. L'étourneau. Oeuvres de Buffon 1826, F. Baudouin, Paris. F. Baudouin (Ed.).
47. Ryer C.H., Olla B.L. Social mechanisms facilitating exploitation of spatially variable ephemeral food patches in a pelagic marine fish. Animal Behaviour 1992, 44:69-74.
48. Senar J.C., Escobar D. Carotenoid derived plumage coloration in the siskin Carduelis spinus is related to foraging ability. Avian Science 2002, 2:19-24.
49. Slaa J., Wassenberg J., Biesmeijer J. The use of field-based social information in eusocial foragers: local enhancement among nestmates and heterospecifics in stingless bees. Ecological Entomology 2003, 28:369-379.
50. Smith J., Benkman C., Coffey K. The use and misuse of public information by foraging red crossbills. Behavioral Ecology 1999, 10:54-62.
51. Sol D., Timmermans S., Lefebvre L. Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:495-502.
52. Templeton J., Giraldeau L.A. Vicarious sampling: the use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patchy environment. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1996, 38:105-114.
53. Tinbergen J.M. Foraging decisions in starlings. Ardea 1981, 69:1-67.
54. Valone T.J. Group foraging, public information and patch estimation. Oikos 1989, 56:357-363.
55. Valone T.J. Bayesian and prescient assessment: foraging with pre-harvest information. Animal Behaviour 1991, 41:569-577.
56. Valone T.J., Giraldeau L.A. Patch estimation by group foragers: what information is used?. Animal Behaviour 1993, 45:721-728.
57. Valone T.J., Templeton J. Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2002, 357:1549-1557.
58. Visalbergi E., Fragazsi D. The behaviour of capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, with novel food: the role of social context. Animal Behaviour 1994, 49:1089-1095.
59. Wauters A.M., Richard-Yris M.A., Talec N. Maternal influences on feeding and general activity in domestic chicks. Ethology 2002, 108:529-540.
60. Williams R., Schwab R. Tests of a potential method for decoying starlings to bait stations. Wildlife Damage Management Internet Center for Bird Control Seminars Proceedings, University of Nebraska 1973, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/117/.
61. Wrona R., Dixon J. Group size and predation risk: a field analysis of encounter and dilution effects. American Naturalist 1991, 137:186-201.