Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is nest predation an important selective pressure determining fecal sac removal? The effect of olfactory cues

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Ornithology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The removal of nestling feces by adults is a common parental behavior in birds. However, this behavior is still poorly understood despite being an important component of parental care, especially in altricial bird species. The threat of nest predation is a major factor that influences many parental activities at the nest and, therefore, it could also be an important selective pressure determining fecal sac removal. To date, this ‘Nest Predation Hypothesis’ has not been tested despite being proposed more than a century ago. Furthermore, it is important to determine whether it is the olfactory and/or visual components of fecal sacs that attract predators. In this study, we have manipulated the presence of real droppings of Common Blackbird (Turdus merula) nestlings in active nests by hiding fresh fecal sacs (experimental), mud (control) or nothing (manipulation control) in a commercial Canary nest attached below natural nests. Our results showed that the presence of fecal sacs did not reduce the daily survival rate of experimental nests in comparison with the other two treatments. It would therefore appear that predation risk is not a selection pressure that maintains feces removal in nests of the Common Blackbird, at least in relation to the olfactory component of the feces. To date, all evidence suggests that this aspect of parental behavior could be affected by other selective pressures (i.e. parasitism) rather than nest predation. Nevertheless, the effect of the visual cues produced by fecal sacs should be further investigated before the Nest Predation Hypothesis is completely discarded.

Zusammenfassung

Stellt Nestprädation einen wichtigen Selektionsdruck für die Entfernung von Kotballen dar? Die Auswirkungen olfaktorischer Signale

Die Entfernung des Nestlingskots durch die Eltern ist eine bei Vögeln verbreitete Verhaltensweise. Obwohl diese also, besonders bei Nesthockern, ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Brutpflege ist, wurde sie bislang noch kaum erforscht. Nestprädation beeinflusst bekanntermaßen das Verhalten der Altvögel hinsichtlich der Brutpflegeaktivitäten am Nest und könnte daher auch einen wichtigen Selektionsdruck für die Entfernung der Kotballen darstellen. Jedoch gibt es bisher noch keine richtigen Tests der “Nestprädationshypothese”, obwohl diese bereits vor über einem Jahrhundert formuliert wurde. Des Weiteren ist es wichtig zu unterscheiden, ob die potenzielle Anlockung der Prädatoren durch die Kotballen auf deren olfaktorischen und/oder visuellen Komponenten beruht. In dieser Untersuchung manipulierten wir das Vorhandensein echten Nestlingskots an aktiven Nestern der Amsel (Turdus merula), indem wir frische Kotballen (Experiment), Schlamm (Kontrolle) oder nichts (Manipulationskontrolle) in handelsüblichen Kanariennestern versteckten, die unter den Naturnestern angebracht wurden. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigten, dass Kotballen die tägliche Nestüberlebensrate der Versuchsnester im Vergleich mit den beiden anderen Gruppen nicht herabsetzten. Daher scheint es sich beim Prädationsrisiko nicht um einen Selektionsdruck zu handeln, der der die Kotentfernung bei Amselnestern begünstigt, zumindest bezogen auf die olfaktorische Komponente des Kots. Bislang deuten alle Hinweise darauf, dass dieser Aspekt des elterlichen Verhaltens anderen Selektionsfaktoren (z. B. Parasitismus) unterliegt als der Nestprädation. Dennoch sollte der Einfluss der von den Kotballen ausgehenden visuellen Signale genauer untersucht werden, bevor die Nestprädationshypothese endgültig verworfen werden kann.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biancucci L, Martin TE (2010) Can selection on nest size from nest predation explain the latitudinal gradient in clutch size? J Anim Ecol 79:1086–1092

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blair RH, Tucker BW (1941) Nest sanitation. Br Birds 34:206–215, 226–235, 250–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, Berline Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway C, Martin TE (2000) Evolution of passerine incubation behavior: influence of food, temperature, and nest predation. Evolution 52:670–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers S, Griesser M, Ekman J (2005) Predator induced plasticity in nest visitation rates in the Siberian Jay (Perisoneus infaustus). Behav Ecol 16:309–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2001) Fecundity-survival trade-offs and parental risk-taking in birds. Science 292:494–497

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gill FB (1990) Ornithology. WH Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Götmark F (1992) Blue eggs do not reduce nest predation in the song thrush, Turdus philomelos. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:245–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Groom DW (1993) Magpie Pica pica predation on blackbird Turdus merula nests in urban areas. Bird Study 40:55–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Guigueno MF, Sealy SG (2012) Nest sanitation in passerine birds: implications for egg rejection in hosts of brood parasites. J Ornithol 153:35–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchwell D, Chamberlain E, Perrins M (1996) The reproductive success of blackbirds Turdus merula in relation to habitat structure and choice of nest site. Ibis 138:256–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrick FH (1900) Care of nest and young. Auk 17:100–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd PL, Weatherhead PJ, McRae SB (1991) Parental consumption of nestling feces: good food or sound economics? Behav Ecol 2:69–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Soler M (2010a) Does urbanization affect selective pressures and life-history strategies in common blackbirds (Turdus merula L.)? Biol J Linn Soc 101:759–766

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Soler M (2010b) Investigator activities reduce nest predation in blackbirds Turdus merula. J Avian Biol 41:208–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Soler M (2012) Predator-induced female behavior in the absence of male incubation feeding: an experimental study. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1067–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Chastel O, Soler M (2011) Hormonal responses of nestlings to predator calls. Gen Comp Endocrinol 171:232–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Arco L, Soler M (2012a) Experimental evidence for a predation cost of begging using active nests and real chicks. J Ornithol 153:801–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Sanllorente O, Soler M (2012b) The impact of researcher disturbance on nest predation rates: a meta-analysis. Ibis 154:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Sanllorente O, Arco L, Soler M (2013) Does nest predation risk induce parent birds to eat nestlings’ fecal sacs? An experimental study. Ann Zool Fenn 50:71–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang JD, Straight CA, Gowaty PA (2002) Observations of fecal sac disposal by Eastern Bluebirds. Condor 104:205–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (2009) Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev 84:485–513

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE (1995) Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monog 65:101–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Briskie JV (2009) Predation on dependent offspring: a review of the consequences for mean expression and phenotypic plasticity in avian life history traits. Ann NY Acad Sci 1168:201–217

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Scott J, Menge C (2000) Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2287–2293

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro M, Starling-Windhof A, Briskie JV, Martin TE (2008) Introduced mammalian predators induce behavioural changes in parental care in an endemic New Zealand bird. PLoS One 3:e2331

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mennerat A, Mirleau P, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM, Heeb P (2009) Aromatic plants in nests of the blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus protect chicks from bacteria. Oecologia 161:849–855

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore RP, Robinson WD (2004) Artificial nest birds, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85:1562–1567

    Google Scholar 

  • Peluc SI, Sillett TS, Rotenberry JT, Ghalambor CK (2008) Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in an island songbird exposed to a novel predation risk. Behav Ecol 19:830–835

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit DR, Petit LJ (1987) Fecal sac dispersal by Prothonotary Warblers: Weatherhead’s hypothesis re-evaluated. Condor 89:610–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit DR, Petit LJ (1988) Reply to Weatherhead: a problem of interpreting stated hypotheses rather than “intention”. Condor 90:519–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit KE, Petit LJ, Petit DR (1989) Fecal sac removal: do the pattern and distance of dispersal affect the chance of nest predation. Condor 91:479–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (2012) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer TL (2004a) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121:526–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer TL (2004b) Logistic-exposure analyses of nest survival. Version 28AUG2008 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown. Available at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/nestsurv/index.htm

  • Skagen SK, Stanley TR, Dillon MB (1999) Do mammalian nest predators follow human scent trails in the shortgrass prairie. Wilson Bull 111:415–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiseth PT, Kölliker M, Royle NJ (2012) What is parental care? In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Rodríguez M, López-Rull I, Macías García C (2013) Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biol Lett 9(1):20120931

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen NG, Broekhuysen J, Feekes F, Houghton JCW, Kruuk H, Szulc E (1963) Egg shell removal by the Black-headed Gull, Larus ridibundus L.: a behavior component of camouflage. Behaviour 19:74–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomialojc L (1994) Breeding ecology of the blackbird Turdus merula studied in the primaeval forest of Bialowieza (Poland). Part 2. Reproduction and mortality. Acta Ornithol 29:101–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherhead PJ (1984) Fecal sac removal by tree swallows: the cost of cleanliness. Condor 86:187–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidinger K (2001a) How well do predation rates on artificial nests estimate predation on natural passerine nests? Ibis 143:632–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidinger K (2001b) Do egg colour affect predation rate on open passerine nests? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:456–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan CJ, Dilger ML, Robson D, Hallyn N, Dilger S (1994) Effects of olfactory cues on artificial-nest experiments. Auk 111:945–952

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanette L (2002) What do artificial nests tells us about nest predation? Biol Conserv 103:323–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanette LY, White AF, Allen MC, Clinchy M (2011) Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. Science 334:1398–1401

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Liesbeth de Neve who kindly helped with the logistic–exposure analyses and whose comments considerably improved this paper. This study was supported by the regional government of the Junta de Andalucía (research project CVI-6653).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Avda. Fuentenueva s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo, Francisco Ruiz-Raya, Gianluca Roncalli & Manuel Soler

  2. Grupo Coevolución, Unidad Asociada al CSIC, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Manuel Soler

Authors
  1. Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco Ruiz-Raya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianluca Roncalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manuel Soler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo.

Additional information

Communicated by O. Krüger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ibáñez-Álamo, J.D., Ruiz-Raya, F., Roncalli, G. et al. Is nest predation an important selective pressure determining fecal sac removal? The effect of olfactory cues. J Ornithol 155, 491–496 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-013-1031-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-013-1031-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation