Wild zebra finches do not use social information from conspecific reproductive success for nest site choice and clutch size decisions

  • Hanja B. BrandlEmail author
  • Simon C. Griffith
  • Wiebke Schuett
Featured Student Research Paper


Information about the quality of local habitat can greatly help to improve an individual’s decision-making and, ultimately, its fitness. Nevertheless, little is known about the mechanisms and significance of information use in reproductive decisions, especially in unpredictable environments. We tested the hypothesis that perceived breeding success of conspecifics serves as a cue for habitat quality and hence influences breeding decisions (nest site choice and clutch size), using the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) as a model species. Zebra finches breed opportunistically in the unpredictable, arid zone of Australia. They often inspect the nests of conspecifics, potentially to prospect on conspecific reproductive success, i.e., to collect social information. We conducted a clutch and brood size manipulation to experimentally create the perception of high and low quality areas. In six areas, clutch sizes of almost 300 zebra finch nests were either all increased (N = 3 areas) or reduced (N = 3 areas) throughout one breeding season. The number of breeding pairs and sizes of newly laid clutches were not significantly affected by the manipulated reproductive success of the areas. Thus, zebra finches did not use social cues for their reproductive decisions, which contrasts with findings of species in temperate zones, and could be an adaptation to the high unpredictability of their habitat. Even the personal experience of rebreeding birds did not directly affect their clutch size. Our study suggests that zebra finches employ a high level of opportunism as a key strategy for reproduction. Further, this is the first study to our knowledge using an experimental approach in the wild to demonstrate that decision-making in unpredictable natural environments might differ from decision-making in temperate environments with seasonal breeding.

Significance statement

Social information can help to optimize the behavior of animals. Birds in temperate climates with seasonality use breeding success of others to predict where they should breed. However, very little is known about information use in less predictable environments. In a field experiment, we created a patchy environment by increasing and decreasing brood sizes of wild zebra finches to test if social information is also used in unpredictable conditions. We found no evidence that zebra finches in the Australian outback use social information from their conspecifics when deciding on nest site and clutch size. They probably gather personal information on environmental parameters and the current availability of resources, which might be more reliable than social information.


Brood size manipulation Decision-making Fluctuating conditions Information use Prospecting Unstable environment 



We thank Anika Immer, Marie Hardenbicker, and Kathryn Peiman for valuable assistance in the field. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. This work was supported by “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (SCHU 2927/3-1 to WS and SCG).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. The work was approved by the Macquarie University Animal Ethics Committee (Animal Research Authority 2015/017) and the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1:1–23,
  2. Betts MG, Hadley AS, Rodenhouse N, Nocera JJ (2008) Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2257–2263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blount JD, Metcalfe NB, Arnold KE, Surai PF, Monaghan P (2006) Effects of neonatal nutrition on adult reproduction in a passerine bird. Ibis 148:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulinier T, Danchin E (1997) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding patch selection in terrestrial migratory species. Evol Ecol 11:505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulinier T, Danchin E, Monnat J-Y, Doutrelant C, Cadiou B (1996) Timing of prospecting and the value of information in a colonial breeding bird. J Avian Biol 27:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulinier T, McCoy KD, Yoccoz NG, Gasparini J, Tveraa T (2008) Public information affects breeding dispersal in a colonial bird: kittiwakes cue on neighbours. Biol Lett 4:538–540CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1988) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown CR, Brown MB, Danchin E (2000) Breeding habitat selection in cliff swallows: the effect of conspecific reproductive success on colony choice. J Anim Ecol 69:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruinzeel LW, van de Pol M (2004) Site attachment of floaters predicts success in territory acquisition. Behav Ecol 15:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cadiou B, Monnat JY, Danchin E (1994) Prospecting in the kittiwake, Rissa tridactyla: different behavioural patterns and the role of squatting in recruitment. Anim Behav 47:847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campobello D, Sealy SG (2011a) Nest defence against avian brood parasites is promoted by egg-removal events in a cowbird–host system. Anim Behav 82:885–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campobello D, Sealy SG (2011b) Use of social over personal information enhances nest defense against avian brood parasitism. Behav Ecol 22:422–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colegrave N, Ruxton GD (2003) Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests than are power calculations. Behav Ecol 14:446–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the study of coloniality. Ecology 79:2415–2428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J (2002) Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297:1168–1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Doligez B, Cadet C, Danchin E, Boulinier T (2003) When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence. Anim Behav 66:973–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doligez B, Pärt T, Danchin E (2004) Prospecting in the collared flycatcher: gathering public information for future breeding habitat selection? Anim Behav 67:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duursma DE, Gallagher RV, Griffith SC (2017) Characterizing opportunistic breeding at a continental scale using all available sources of phenological data: an assessment of 337 species across the Australian continent. Auk 134:509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erwin RM, Nichols JD, Eyler TB, Stotts DB, Truitt BR (1998) Modeling colony-site dynamics: a case study of gull-billed terns (Sterna nilotica) in coastal Virginia. Auk 115:970–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farine DR, Spencer KA, Boogert NJ (2015) Early-life stress triggers juvenile zebra finches to switch social learning strategies. Curr Biol 25:2184–2188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman MW, Aoki K, Kumm J (1996) Individual versus social learning: evolutionary analysis in a fluctuating environment. Anthropol Sci 104:209–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fokkema RW, Ubels R, Tinbergen JM (2016) Great tits trade off future competitive advantage for current reproduction. Behav Ecol 27:1656–1664Google Scholar
  26. Fokkema RW, Ubels R, Tinbergen JM (2017) Is parental competitive ability in winter negatively affected by previous springs’ family size? Ecol Evol 7:1410–1420CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Forsman JT, Seppänen J-T, Nykänen IL (2011) Observed heterospecific clutch size can affect offspring investment decisions. Biol Lett 8:341–343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T, Valone TJ (1994) Social foraging: individual learning and cultural transmission of innovations. Behav Ecol 5:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffith SC, Pryke SR, Mariette M (2008) Use of nest-boxes by the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata): implications for reproductive success and research. Emu 108:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffith SC, Holleley CE, Mariette MM, Pryke SR, Svedin N (2010) Low level of extrapair parentage in wild zebra finches. Anim Behav 79:261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haywood S, Perrins CM (1992) Is clutch size in birds affected by environmental conditions during growth? Proc R Soc Lond B 249:195–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaakkonen T, Kari A, Forsman JT (2013) Flycatchers copy conspecifics in nest-site selection but neither personal experience nor frequency of tutors have an effect. PLoS One 8:e60395CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaakkonen T, Kivelä SM, Meier CM, Forsman JT (2014) The use and relative importance of intraspecific and interspecific social information in a bird community. Behav Ecol 26:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kendal RL, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict. Behav Ecol 15:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Stud Behav 35:333–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Anim Learn Behav 32:4–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemon WC (1993) The energetics of lifetime reproductive success in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Physiol Zool 66:946–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mariette MM, Griffith SC (2012a) Conspecific attraction and nest site selection in a nomadic species, the zebra finch. Oikos 121:823–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mariette MM, Griffith SC (2012b) Nest visit synchrony is high and correlates with reproductive success in the wild zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. J Avian Biol 43:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mariette MM, Pariser EC, Gilby AJ, Magrath MJ, Pryke SR, Griffith SC (2011) Using an electronic monitoring system to link offspring provisioning and foraging behavior of a wild passerine. Auk 128:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCowan LSC, Mariette MM, Griffith SC (2015) The size and composition of social groups in the wild zebra finch. Emu 115:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morton SR, Stafford Smith DM, Dickman CR, Dunkerley DL, Friedel MH, McAllister RRJ, Reid JRW, Roshier DA, Smith MA, Walsh FJ, Wardle GM, Watson IW, Westoby M (2011) A fresh framework for the ecology of arid Australia. J Arid Environ 75:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parejo D, Oro D, Danchin E (2006) Testing habitat copying in breeding habitat selection in a species adapted to variable environments. Ibis 148:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parejo D, White J, Clobert J, Dreiss A, Danchin E (2007) Blue tits use fledgling quantity and quality as public information in breeding site choice. Ecology 88:2373–2382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pärt T, Doligez B (2003) Gathering public information for habitat selection: prospecting birds cue on parental activity. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1809–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perfito N, Zann RA, Bentley GE, Hau M (2007) Opportunism at work: habitat predictability affects reproductive readiness in free-living zebra finches. Funct Ecol 21:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piper WH (2011) Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1329–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria Google Scholar
  49. Rafacz M, Templeton JJ (2003) Environmental unpredictability and the value of social information for foraging starlings. Ethology 109:951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reed JM, Boulinier T, Danchin E, Oring LW (1999) Informed dispersal. In: Nolan V Jr, Ketterson ED, Thompson EF (eds) Current ornithology, vol 15. Springer US, New York, pp 189–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Samplonius JM, Kromhout van der Meer IM, Both C (2017) Nest site preference depends on the relative density of conspecifics and heterospecifics in wild birds. Front Zool 14:56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmidt KA, Dall SRX, van Gils JA (2010) The ecology of information: an overview on the ecological significance of making informed decisions. Oikos 119:304–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schuett W, Laaksonen J, Laaksonen T (2012) Prospecting at conspecific nests and exploration in a novel environment are associated with reproductive success in the jackdaw. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1341–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schuett W, Koegl BB, Dall SRX, Laaksonen T (2015) Do pied flycatchers use personal or social information for replacement clutch decisions? A field experiment. Ethology 121:686–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schuett W, Järvistö PE, Calhim S, Velmala W, Laaksonen T (2017) Nosy neighbours: large broods attract more visitors. A field experiment in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Oecologia 184:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Selman RG, Houston DC (1996) The effect of prebreeding diet on reproductive output in zebra finches. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1585–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slagsvold T (1984) Clutch size variation of birds in relation to nest predation: on the cost of reproduction. J Anim Ecol 53:945–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stamps J (1987) Conspecifics as cues to territory quality: a preference of juvenile lizards (Anolis aeneus) for previously used territories. Am Nat 129:629–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thorogood R, Davies NB (2016) Combining personal with social information facilitates host defences and explains why cuckoos should be secretive. Sci Rep 6:19872CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Valone TJ (2007) From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Waas JR, Colgan PW, Boag PT (2005) Playback of colony sound alters the breeding schedule and clutch size in zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) colonies. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ward MP (2005) Habitat selection by dispersing yellow-headed blackbirds: evidence of prospecting and the use of public information. Oecologia 145:650–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Webster MM, Hart PJB (2006) Subhabitat selection by foraging threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): previous experience and social conformity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webster MM, Laland KN (2008) Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2869–2876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wingfield JC, Hahn TP, Levin R, Honey P (1992) Environmental predictability and control of gonadal cycles in birds. J Exp Zool Part A 261:214–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zann RA (1996) The zebra finch: a synthesis of field and laboratory studies, vol 5. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Zann RA, Morton SR, Jones KR, Burley NT (1995) The timing of breeding by zebra finches in relation to rainfall in Central Australia. Emu 95:208–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.UNSW Arid Zone Research StationFowlers GapAustralia
  4. 4.School of Life Sciences, University of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations