Is it interspecific information use or aggression between putative competitors that steers the selection of nest-site characteristics? A reply to Slagsvold and Wiebe

Journal of Avian Biology

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2018, Pages

  Forsman, Jukka T ^a   Seppänen, Janne Tuomas ^c   Mönkkönen, Mikko ^c   Thomson, Robert L ^d   Kivelä, Sami M ^e   Krams, Indrikis ^e,f   Loukola, Olli J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA   (Latvia)

Author keywords

interspecific competition; interspecific information use; nest site selection

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; CLUTCH SIZE; FITNESS; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; MIGRATORY POPULATION; NEST SITE; PASSERINE; SITE SELECTION;

EID: 85041372142     PISSN: 09088857     EISSN: 1600048X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jav.01558     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Ahola M. P. Laaksonen T. Eeva T. Lehikoinen E. 2007. Climate change can alter competitive relationships between resident and migratory birds. – J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 1045–1052.
2. Alatalo R. V. Mappes J. 1996. Tracking the evolution of warning signals. – Nature 382: 708–710.
3. Avilés J. M. Soler J. J. Péres-Contreras T. 2006. Dark nests and egg colour in birds: a possible functional role of ultraviolet reflectance inegg detectability. – Proc. R. Soc. B 273: 2821–2829.
4. Bijma P. Muir W. van Arendonk J. A. M. 2007. Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of selection and response to selection. – Genetics 175: 277–288.
5. Boyd R. Richerson P. J. 1985. Culture and the evolutionary process. – Univ. Chicago Press.
6. Brommer J. E. Rattiste K. 2008. “Hidden” reproductive conflict between mates in a wild bird population. – Evolution 62: 2326–2333.
7. Charmantier A. Perrins C. M. McCleery R. H. Sheldon B. C. 2006. Evolutionary response to selection on clutch size in a long-term study of the mute swan. – Am. Nat. 167: 453–465.
8. Cole E. F. Morand-Ferron J. Hinks A. E. Quinn J. L. 2012. Cognitive ability influences reproductive life history variation in the wild. – Curr. Biol 22: 1808–1812.
9. Dawson E. H. Chittka L. 2012. Conspecific and heterospecific information use in bumblebees. – PLoS One 7: e31444.
10. Dingemanse N. J. Both C. Drent P. J. van Oers K. van Noordwijk A. J. 2002. Repeatability and heritability of exploratory behaviour in great tits from the wild. – Anim. Behav. 64: 929–938.
11. Emmering Q. C. Schmidt K. A. 2011. Nesting songbirds assess spatial heterogeneity of predatory chipmunks by eavesdropping on their vocalizations. – J. Anim. Ecol. 80: 1305–1312.
12. Farine D. R. Aplin L. M. Sheldon B. C. Hoppit W. 2015. Interspecific social networks promote information transmission in wild songbirds. – Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20142804.
13. Fletcher R. J. Jr 2007. Species interactions and population density mediate the use of social cues for habitat selection. – J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 598–606.
14. Forsman J. T. Seppänen J.-T. 2011. Learning what (not) to do: testing rejection and copying of simulated heterospecific behavioural traits. – Anim. Behav. 81: 879–883.
15. Forsman J. T. Mönkkönen M. Helle P. Inkeröinen J. 1998. Heterospecific attraction and food resources in migrants’ breeding patch selection in northern boreal forests. – Oecologia 115: 278–286.
16. Forsman J. T. Seppänen J.-T. Mönkkönen M. 2002. Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a potential competitor. – Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 1619–1623.
17. Forsman J. T. Thomson R. L. Seppänen J.-T. 2007. Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds. – Behav. Ecol. 18: 888–894.
18. Forsman J. T. Hjernquist M. B. Taipale J. Gustafsson L. 2008. Competitor density cues for habitat quality facilitating habitat selection and investment decisions. – Behav. Ecol. 19: 539–545.
19. Forsman J. T. Seppänen J.-T. Nykänen I. L. 2012. Observed heterospecific clutch size can affect offspring investment decisions. – Biol. Lett. 8: 341–343.
20. Forsman J. T. Kivelä S. M. Jaakkonen T. Seppänen J.-T. Gustafsson L. Doligez B. 2014. Avoiding perceived past resource use of potential competitors affects niche dynamics in a bird community. – BMC Evol. Biol. 14: 175.
21. Galef B. G. Jr Laland K. N. 2005. Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. – BioScience 55: 489–499.
22. Garland A. Low J. 2014. Addition and subtraction in wild New Zealand robins. – Behav. Process. 109 doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.022
23. Germain R. R. Wolak M. E. Arcese P. Losdat S. Reid J. M. 2016. Direct and indirect genetic and fine-scale location effects on breeding date in song sparrows. – J. Anim. Ecol. 85: 1613–1624.
24. Haftorn S. Slagsvold T. 1995. Egg covering in birds: description of the behaviour in tits (Parus spp.) and a test of hypotheses of its function. – Fauna Norw. Ser. C, Cinclus 18: 85–106.
25. Haywood S. 2016. Can birds count eggs in the nests? – Ibis 158: 195–198.
26. Henrich J. Gil-White F. J. 2001. The evolution of prestige: freely conferred status as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. – Evol. Hum. Behav. 22: 165–196.
27. Hollander F. A. Van Overveld T. Tokka I. Matthysen E. 2008. Personality and nest defense in the great tit (Parus major). – Ethology 114: 405–412.
28. Hunt S. Low J. Burns K. C. 2008. Adaptive numerical competence in food-hoarding songbird. – Proc. R. Soc. B 275: 2373–2379.
29. Jaakkonen T. Kivelä S. M. Meier C. M. Forsman J. T. 2015. The use and relative importance of intraspecific and interspecific social information in a bird community. – Behav. Ecol. 26: 55–64.
30. Julliard R. McCleery R. H. Clobert J. Perrins C. M. 1997. Phenotypic adjustment of clutch size due to nest predation in the great tit. – Ecology 78: 394–404.
31. Kivelä S. M. Seppänen J.-T. Ovaskainen O. Doligez B. Gustafsson L. Mönkkönen M. Forsman J. T. 2014. The past and the present in decision-making: the use of conspecific and heterospecific cues in nest site selection. – Ecology 95: 3428–3439.
32. Laland K. N. 2004. Social learning strategies. – Learn. Behav. 32: 4–14.
33. Loukola O. J. Seppänen J.-T. Forsman J. T. 2012. Intraspecific social information use in the selection of nest site characteristics. – Anim. Behav. 83: 629–633.
34. Loukola O. J. Seppänen J.-T. Krams I. Torvinen S. S. Forsman J. T. 2013. Observed fitness may affect niche overlap in competing species via selective social information use. – Am. Nat. 182: 474–483.
35. Loukola O. J. Laaksonen T. Seppänen J.-T. Forsman J. T. 2014. Active hiding of social information from information parasites. – BMC Evol. Biol. 14: 32.
36. Magrath R. D. Haff T. M. Fallow P. M. Radford A. N. 2015. Eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: from mechanisms to consequences. – Biol. Rev. 90: 560–586.
37. Martin P. R. Martin T. E. 2001a. Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with wood warblers. – Ecology 82: 189–206.
38. Martin P. R. Martin T. E. 2001b. Behavioral interactions between coexisting species: song playback experiments with wood warblers. – Ecology 82: 207–218.
39. Martin T. E. 1996. Fitness costs of resource overlap among coexisting bird species. – Nature 380: 338–340.
40. Martin T. E. 1998. Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under selection and adaptive? – Ecology 79: 656–670.
41. McCleery R. H. Pettifor R. A. Armbruster P. Meyer K. Sheldon B. C. Perrins C. M. 2004. Components of variance underlying fitness in a natural population of the great tit Parus major. – Am. Nat. 164: E62–E72.
42. Merilä J. Wiggins D. A. 1995 Interspecific competition for nest holes causes adult mortality in the collared flycatcher. – Condor 97: 445–450.
43. Miller C. W. Fletcher R. J. Jr Gillespie S. R. 2013. Conspecific and heterospecific cues override resource quality to influence offspring production. – PLoS One 8: e70268.
44. Mönkkönen M. Helle P. Soppela K. 1990. Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communities? – Oecologia 85: 218–225.
45. Odell N. S. Eadie J. M. 2010. Do wood ducks use the quantity of eggs in a nest as a cue to the nest's value? – Behav. Ecol. 21: 794–801.
46. Parejo D. Avilés J. M. Rodríguez J. 2012. Alarm calls modulate the spatial structure of a breeding owl community. – Proc. R. Soc. B 279: 2135–2141.
47. Remm J. Lõhmus A. Remm K. 2006. Tree cavities in riverine forests: what determines their occurrence and use by hole-nesting passerines? – For. Ecol. Manage. 221: 267–277.
48. Samplonius J. M. 2017. Does territory owner aggression offer an alternative explanation to patterns in heterospecific information use studies? A comment on Slagsvold & Wiebe. – J. Avian Biol. doi:10.1111/jav.01567
49. Samplonius J. M. Both C. 2017. Competitor phenology as a social cue in breeding site selection. – J. Anim. Ecol. 86: 615–623.
50. Sebastián-Gonzáles E. Sánchez-Zapata J. A Botella F. Ovaskainen O. 2010. Testing the heterospecific attraction hypothesis with time-series data on species co-occurrence. – Proc. R. Soc. B 277: 2983–2990.
51. Seppänen J.-T. Forsman J. T. 2007. Interspecific social learning: novel preference can be acquired from a competing species. – Curr. Biol. 17: 1–5.
52. Seppänen J.-T. Forsman J. T. Mönkkönen M. Thomson R. L. 2007. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. – Ecology 88: 1622–1633.
53. Seppänen J.-T. Forsman J. T. Mönkkönen M. Krams I. Salmi T. 2011. New behavioural trait adopted or rejected by observing heterospecific tutor fitness. – Proc. R. Soc. B 278: 1736–1741.
54. Siitari H. Honkavaara J. Huhta E. Viitala J. 2002. Ultraviolet reflection and female mate choice in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. – Anim. Behav. 63: 97–102.
55. Slagsvold T. 1975. Competition between the great tit Parus major and the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca in the breeding season. – Ornis Scand. 6: 179–190.
56. Slagsvold T. Wiebe K. L. 2011. Social learning in birds and its role in shaping a foraging niche. – Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366: 969–977.
57. Slagsvold T. Wiebe K. L. 2017. On the use of heterospecific information for nest site selection in birds. – J. Avian Biol. 48: 1–6.
58. Stevens M. Cuthill I. C. 2007. Hidden messages: are ultraviolet signals a special channel in avian communication. – BioScience 57: 501–507.
59. Szymkowiak J. Thomson R. L. Kuczynski L. 2017. Interspecific social information use in habitat selection decisions among migrant songbirds. – Behav. Ecol. 28 doi:10.1093/beheco/arx029
60. Verbeek M. E. M. Boon A. Drent P. J. 1996. Exploration, aggressive behaviour and dominance behaviour if pairwise confrontations of juvenile male great tits. – Behaviour 133: 945–963.
61. Vrublevska J. Krama T. Rantala M. J. Mierauskas P. Todd M. Freeberg T. M. Krams I. A. 2014. Personality and density affect nest defence and nest survival in the great tit. – Acta Ethol. 18: 111–120.
62. Wilson A. J. 2014. Competition as a source of constraint on life history evolution in natural populations. – Heredity 112: 70–78.
63. Zanette L. Y. White A. F. Allen M. C. Clinchy M. 2011. Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. – Science 334: 1398–1401.