Plasticity in incubation behaviour under experimentally prolonged vulnerability to nest predation

in Behaviour
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Nest predation is the main cause of nest failures in many bird species. To counter this, birds have evolved different behavioural strategies to decrease the visibility of their nests, thus reducing the probability of nest detection. We manipulated the long-term perception of nest predation risk in pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) by experimentally increasing the nest vulnerability to predators. We placed treatment and control nest-boxes for breeding pied flycatchers that appeared identical during the initial phase of breeding. But after the removal of a front panel, treatment boxes had an enlarged entrance hole, almost twice the initial diameter. This treatment increases actual predation risk and presumably parental perception of risk. Control boxes presented instead an entrance hole of the same size both before and after the manipulation. When breeding in enlarged entrance holes, females doubled the vigilance at the nest while males reduced the time spent at the nest, compared to pied flycatchers breeding in control boxes. Increased vulnerability of the nest site to predation risk, thus, induced pied flycatcher parents to increase nest vigilance while reducing their activity at the nest. These results highlight the existence of plasticity in incubation behaviours under long-term experimentally increased nest predation risk.

Plasticity in incubation behaviour under experimentally prolonged vulnerability to nest predation

in Behaviour

Sections

References

CaroT. (2005). Antipredator defences in birds and mammals. — University of Chicago PressChicago, IL.

ChalfounA.D.MartinT.E. (2007). Latitudinal variation in avian incubation attentiveness and a test of the food limitation hypothesis. — Anim. Behav. 73: 579-585.

ChalfounA.D.MartinT.E. (2010). Parental investment decisions in response to ambient nest-predation risk versus actual predation on the prior nest. — Condor 112: 701-710.

Clutton-BrockT. (1991). The evolution of parental care. — Princeton University PressPrinceton, NJ.

ConwayC.J.MartinT.E. (2000a). Effects of ambient temperature on avian incubation behavior. — Behav. Ecol. 11: 178-188.

ConwayC.J.MartinT.E. (2000b). Evolution of passerine incubation behavior: influence of food, temperature, and nest predation. — Evolution 54: 670-685.

CreelS.WinnieJ.A.ChristiansonD.LileyS. (2008). Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk. — Anim. Behav. 76: 1139-1146.

CresswellW. (1997). Nest predation: the relative effects of nest characteristics, clutch size and parental behaviour. — Anim. Behav. 53: 93-103.

CresswellW. (2008). Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. — Ibis 150: 3-17.

DaleS.GustavsenR.SlagsvoldT. (1996). Risk taking during parental care: a test of three hypotheses applied to the pied flycatcher. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39: 31-42.

FontaineJ.J.MartinT.E. (2006). Parent birds assess nest predation risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. — Ecol. Lett. 9: 428-434.

GalvanI.SanzJ.J. (2011). Mate-feeding has evolved as a compensatory energetic strategy that affects breeding success in birds. — Behav. Ecol. 22: 1088-1095.

GhalamborC.K.MartinT.E. (2000). Parental investment strategies in two species of nuthatch vary with stage-specific predation risk and reproductive effort. — Anim. Behav. 60: 263-267.

GhalamborC.K.MartinT.E. (2002). Comparative manipulation of predation risk in incubating birds reveals variability in the plasticity of responses. — Behav. Ecol. 13: 101-108.

HeppG.R.KennamerR.A.JohnsonM.H. (2006). Maternal effects in Wood Ducks: incubation temperature influences incubation period and neonate phenotype. — Funct. Ecol. 20: 307-314.

Ibáñez-ÁlamoJ.D.SolerM. (2012). Predator-induced female behavior in the absence of male incubation feeding: an experimental study. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66: 1067-1073.

KorpimäkiE.HakkarainenH. (2012). The boreal owl: ecology behaviour and conservation of a forest-dwelling predator. — Cambridge University PressCambridge.

KovarikP.PavelV. (2011). Does threat to the nest affect incubation rhythm in a small passerine?Ethology 117: 181-187.

LifjeldJ.T.SlagsvoldT. (1986). The function of courtship feeding during incubation in the pied flycatcher Ficedula-hypoleuca. — Anim. Behav. 34: 1441-1453.

LimaS.L. (2009). Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. — Biol. Rev. 84: 485-513.

LondonoG.A.LeveyD.J.RobinsonS.K. (2008). Effects of temperature and food on incubation behaviour of the northern mockingbird, Mimus polyglottos. — Anim. Behav. 76: 669-677.

LyonB.E.MontgomerieR.D. (1985). Incubation feeding in snow buntings — female manipulation or indirect male parental care. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 279-284.

MartinT.E. (1993). Nest predation and nest sites. — BioScience 43: 523-532.

MartinT.E.GhalamborC.K. (1999). Males feeding females during incubation. I. Required by microclimate or constrained by nest predation. — Am. Nat. 153: 131-139.

MartinT.E.ScottJ.MengeC. (2000). Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 267: 2287-2293.

MartinT.E.BriskieJ.V. (2009). Predation on dependent offspring a review of the consequences for mean expression and phenotypic plasticity in avian life history traits. — In: Year in evolutionary biology ( SchlichtingC.D.MousseauT.A. eds). Wiley-BlackwellMalden p.  201-217.

MartinT.E.ArrieroE.MajewskaA. (2011). A trade-off between embryonic development rate and immune function of avian offspring is revealed by considering embryonic temperature. — Biol. Lett. 7: 425-428.

MassaroM.Starling-WindhofA.BriskieJ.V.MartinT.E. (2008). Introduced mammalian predators induce behavioural changes in parental care in an endemic New Zealand bird. — PlosOne 3: e2331.

MontgomerieR.D.WeatherheadP.J. (1988). Risks and rewards of nest defense by parent birds. — Q. Rev. Biol. 63: 167-187.

MorosinottoC.ThomsonR.L.HänninenM.KorpimäkiE. (2012). Higher nest predation risk in association with a top predator: mesopredator attraction?Oecologia 170: 507-515.

NilssonJ.F.StjernmanM.NilssonJ.A. (2008). Experimental reduction of incubation temperature affects both nestling and adult blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus. — J. Avian Biol. 39: 553-559.

PožgayováM.ProcházkaP.HonzaM. (2009). Adjustment of incubation according to the threat posed: a further signal of enemy recognition in the Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla?J Ornithol. 150: 569-576.

RemešV. (2005). Nest concealment and parental behaviour interact in affecting nest survival in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla): an experimental evaluation of the parental compensation hypothesis. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58: 326-333.

ScheinerS.M. (1993). Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. — Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 35-68.

SofaerH.R.SillettT.S.PelucS.I.MorrisonS.A.GhalamborC.K. (2013). Differential effects of food availability and nest predation risk on avian reproductive strategies. — Behav. Ecol. 24: 698-707.

St ClairJ.J.H.Garcia-PenaG.E.WoodsR.W.SzekelyT. (2010). Presence of mammalian predators decreases tolerance to human disturbance in a breeding shorebird. — Behav. Ecol. 21: 1285-1292.

ThomsonR.L.ForsmanJ.T.MönkkönenM. (2011). Risk taking in natural predation risk gradients: support for risk allocation from breeding pied flycatchers. — Anim. Behav. 82: 1443-1447.

TraversM.ClinchyM.ZanetteL.BoonstraR.WilliamsT.D. (2010). Indirect predator effects on clutch size and the cost of egg production. — Ecol. Lett. 13: 980-988.

WalsbergG.E.SchmidtC.A. (1992). Effects of variable humidity on embryonic-development and hatching success of mourning doves. — Auk 109: 309-314.

WilliamsG.C. (1966). Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. — Am. Nat. 100: 687-690.

ZanetteL.Y.WhiteA.F.AllenM.C.ClinchyM. (2011). Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. — Science 334: 1398-1401.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    (a) Treatment boxes appeared normal during habitat choice and egg-laying periods, but a panel was removed during incubation revealing an enlarged entrance hole increasing nest vulnerability to predators. (b) Control boxes appeared normal but during incubation the removed panel revealed an entrance hole of the same, normal, size as before manipulation and did not alter nest vulnerability. This figure is published in colour in the online edition of this journal, which can be accessed via http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/1568539x.

  • View in gallery

    Pied flycatcher females scanning the surrounding of the nest-box from the entrance hole of a treatment nest-box (left) and a control nest-box (right). This figure is published in colour in the online edition of this journal, which can be accessed via http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/1568539x.

  • View in gallery

    Mean ± standard error (SE) of female vigilance rate (minutes of vigilance/10 min) in nest-boxes with normal entrance hole (controls; white bars) and with enlarged entrance hole (treatments; hatched bars).

  • View in gallery

    Mean ± standard error (SE) of male minutes at the nest every ten minutes in nest boxes with normal entrance hole (controls; white bar) and with enlarged entrance hole (treatments; hatched bar).

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 8 8 5
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0