Advertisement

How robust are risk-taking associations in incubating birds? A test and a review

  • Kylee F. Graham
  • Dave ShutlerEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Flushing distance (FD, the horizontal distance between a parent bird when it leaves its nest and an approaching predator) is one measure of nest defense and of risk-taking; parents that stay too long risk being killed, whereas those that flush too early risk at the very least impairing development of their young, and at the very worst leaving them unprotected against predators. Thus, FD should be under strong natural selection. A general prediction is that incubating birds will remain on a nest being approached by a predator until risks of staying reach a threshold that outweighs costs of fleeing. This threshold is predicted to vary depending on a brood’s value, parental characteristics, environmental conditions, and learning that repeated visits pose a limited or no threat. We evaluated FD in a nest box population of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) relative to each of these. We obtained 246 FDs from 66 different nests over 2 years. We found some evidence that FD increased with clutch size (tendency), female age, and air temperature, and decreased with greater overhead vegetation density; six additional associations were not significant. Given the lackluster support for the predictions we tested, we did a review of the literature and similarly found limited support for most of the associations we tested despite the entrenched view that these relationships are commonplace. We submit that further insights are needed into understanding predictors of FD in incubating birds.

Significance statement

Parent birds sitting on eggs are proverbial sitting ducks, although they do have the option of fleeing predators. However, parents may be willing to sacrifice themselves to protect their eggs if the latter become sufficiently valuable. One assumption is that eggs increase in value closer to hatch, and one prediction is that parents will be more reluctant to fly from their nests later in incubation. We tested this and other predictions in a population of nest-box-using tree swallows in eastern North America. The relatively weak support we obtained for our predictions suggests that we need to reevaluate our assumptions in this area of research.

Keywords

Brood value Flush distance Nest defense Parental investment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was part of KG’s BSc (Hons) degree. We thank the many people inside and outside of Team Shutler that helped collect data in the field and that offered input, David Westneat and Brian Wisenden for valuable suggestions to improve our analyses, and Mark Stanback for encouragement. We thank Mark Stanback and two anonymous reviewers for helping substantially to improve the final product.

Funding information

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada via a University Research Award to KG and a Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2015-05617) to DS, a Nova Scotia Habitat Conservation Fund (Hunters and Trappers) grant to DS, Raddall Fund grants to DS, and Acadia University grants to DS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

Our tree swallows occupy an anthropogenically modified landscape where interactions with humans and vehicles are commonplace, and we would have approached nests for routine monitoring even had we not measured flush initiation distances. When handling birds for sexing and banding, we worked as quickly and as quietly as possible to minimize stress. All procedures were approved by the Acadia University Animal Care Committee (Protocol 03-16R#1). All applicable guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andersen DE (1990) Nest-defense behavior of Red-tailed Hawks. Condor 92:991–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bicudo JEPW, Buttermer WA, Chappell MA et al (2010) Adaptations: developmental physiology. In: Bicudo JEPW, Buttemer WA, Chappell MA (eds) Ecological and environmental physiology of birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 208–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bötsch Y, Gugelmann S, Tablado Z, Jenni L (2018) Effect of human recreation on bird anti-predatory response. PeerJ 6:e5093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulluck LP, Buehler DA (2008) Factors influencing golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) nest-site selection and nest survival in the Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee. Auk 125:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burhans DE, Thompson FR (2001) Relationship of songbird nest concealment to nest fate and flushing behavior of adults. Auk 118:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey JR, Leido P, Orzco D, Vaupel JW (1992) Slowing of mortality rates at older ages in large medfly cohorts. Science 258:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnov EL, Krebs JR (1974) On clutch size and fitness. Ibis 116:217–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH (1984) Reproductive effort and terminal investment in iteroparous animals. Am Nat 123:212–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Conover MR (2007) Predator-prey dynamics: the role of olfaction. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Orazio KA, Neudorf DL (2008) Nest defense by Carolina Wrens. Wilson J Ornithol 120:467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dale S, Gustavsen R, Slagsvold T (1996) Risk taking during parental care: a test of three hypotheses applied to the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durant SE, Hopkins WA, Hepp GR, Walters JR (2013) Ecological, evolutionary, and conservation implications of incubation temperature-dependent phenotypes in birds. Biol Rev 88:499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis-Felege SN, Burnam JS, Palmer WE, Sisson DC, Carroll JP (2013) Fight or flight: parental decisions about predators at nests of northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus). Auk 130:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Environment Canada (2018) Historical climate data. Government of Canada. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2018.
  17. Forbes MR, Clark RG, Weatherhead PJ, Armstrong T (1994) Risk-taking by female ducks: intra-and interspecific tests of nest defense theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Götmark F, Blomqvist D, Johansson OC, Bergkvist J (1995) Nest site selection: a trade-off between concealment and view of the surroundings? J Avian Biol 26:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham KF (2018) Risk-taking by Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) during nest defense. BSc (Hons) thesis, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada.Google Scholar
  20. Grant TA, Shaffer TL (2012) Time-specific patterns of nest survival for ducks and passerines breeding in North Dakota. Auk 129:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant TA, Shaffer TL, Madden EM, Pietz PJ (2005) Time-specific variation in passerine nest survival: new insights into old questions. Auk 122:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gunness MA, Weatherhead PJ (2002) Variation in nest defense in ducks: methodological and biological insights. J Avian Biol 33:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hainstock MH, Smith MC, Carr J, Shutler D (2010) Parental investment and brood value in tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Behaviour 147:441–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland ER, Shutler D (2018) Nest feathering responses by tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) to experimental manipulation of temperature and clutch size. J Ornithol 159:991–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones J (2003) Tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor): a new model organism? Auk 120:591–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeley WH, Bechard MJ (2011) Flushing distances of ferruginous hawks nesting in rural and exurban New Mexico. J Wildl Manag 75:1034–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight RL, Temple SA (1986) Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the nesting cycle? Auk 103:318–327Google Scholar
  28. Mallory ML, McNicol DK, Walton RA, Wayland M (1998) Risk-taking by incubating common goldeneyes and hooded mergansers. Condor 100:694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller V, Abraham KF, Nol E (2013) Factors affecting the responses of female Canada Geese to disturbance during incubation. J Field Ornithol 84:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell K (2010) Quantitative analysis by the point-centered quarter method. arXiv:1010:3303Google Scholar
  31. Møller AP (1989) Parasites, predators and nest boxes: facts and artefacts in nest box studies of birds? Oikos 56:421–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Møller AP (2015) Birds. In: Cooper WE, Blumstein DT (eds) Escaping from predators: an integrative view of escape decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 88–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muldal AM, Gibbs HL, Robertson RJ (1985) Preferred nest spacing of an obligate cavity-nesting bird, the tree swallow. Condor 87:356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nussey DH, Froy H, Lemaitre JF, Gaillard JM, Austad SN (2013) Senescence in natural populations of animals: widespread evidence and its implications for bio-gerontology. Ageing Res Rev 12:214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Obomsawin A (2017) Features associated with nest-site use in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). BSc (Hons) thesis, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Olson CR, Vleck CM, Vleck D (2006) Periodic cooling of bird eggs reduces embryonic growth efficiency. Physiol Biochem Zool 79:927–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palestis BG (2005) Nesting stage and nest defense by common terns. Waterbirds 28:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pavel V, Bureš S (2008) Nest defence in the meadow pipit Anthus pratensis: the influence of renesting potential. J Ethol 26:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perrins CM, Moss D (1975) Reproductive rates in the great tit. J Anim Ecol 44:695–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pressley PH (1981) Parental effort and the evolution of nest-guarding tactics in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Evolution 35:282–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Promislow DE (1991) Senescence in natural populations of mammals: a comparative study. Evolution 45:1869–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Radford AN, Blakey JK (2000) Intensity of nest defence is related to offspring sex ratio in the great tit Parus major. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Redmond LJ, Murphy MT, Dolan AC, Sexton K (2009) Parental investment theory and nest defense by eastern kingbirds. Wilson J Ornithol 121:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Redondo T, Carranza J (1989) Offspring reproductive value and nest defense in the magpie (Pica pica). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Regelmann K, Curio E (1983) Determinants of brood defence in the great tit Parus major L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rendell WB, Verbeek NAM (1996) Are avian ectoparasites more numerous in nest boxes with old nest material? Can J Zool 74:1819–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robertson RJ, Rendell WB (2001) A long-term study of reproductive performance in tree swallows: the influence of age and senescence on output. J Anim Ecol 70:1014–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rytkönen S (2002) Nest defence in great tits Parus major: support for parental investment theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saunders CH, Shutler D (2019) A portable, remote-controlled nest-box trap. J Field Ornithol 90:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shutler D (2019) Some important overlooked aspects of odors in avian nesting ecology. J Avian Biol 50:e02003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shutler D, Hussell DJT, Horn AG, Leonard ML, Shutler RW, Lepage D (2004) Breeding between tree swallows from the same brood. J Field Ornithol 75:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shutler D, Clark RG, Fehr C, Diamond AW (2006) Time and recruitment costs as currencies in manipulation studies on the costs of reproduction. Ecology 87:2938–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shutler D, Hussell DJT, Norris DR et al (2012) Spatio-temporal patterns across North America in nest box occupancy by Tree Swallows. Avian Conserv Ecol 7:3Google Scholar
  55. Stearns SC (1976) Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Q Rev Biol 51:3–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strickler GS (1959) Use of the densiometer to estimate density of forest canopy on permanent sample plots. PNW Old Series Res Notes 180:1–5Google Scholar
  57. Stutchbury BJ, Robertson RJ (1988) Within-season and age-related patterns of reproductive performance in female tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Can J Zool 66:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BG (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  59. Weatherhead PJ (1979) Do savannah sparrows commit the Concorde Fallacy? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weatherhead PJ (1989) Nest defence by song sparrows: methodological and life history considerations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Westneat DF (1989) Intensity of nest defense in indigo buntings increases with stage and not number of visits. Auk 106:747–749Google Scholar
  62. White FN, Kinney JL (1974) Avian incubation. Science 186:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiebe KL, Martin K (1998) Costs and benefits of nest cover for ptarmigan: changes within and between years. Anim Behav 56:1137–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson-Aggarwal JK, Troscianko JT, Stevens M, Spottiswoode CN (2016) Escape distance in ground-nesting birds differs with individual level of camouflage. Am Nat 188:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winkler DW (1992) Causes and consequences of variation in parental defense behavior by tree swallows. Condor 94:502–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winkler DW, Hallinger KK, Ardia DR et al (2011) Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca.  https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winkler DW, Ringelman KM, Dunn PO, Whittingham L, Hussell DJT, Clark RG, Dawson RD, Johnson LS, Rose A, Austin SH, Robinson WD, Lombardo MP, Thorpe PA, Shutler D, Robertson RJ, Stager M, Leonard M, Horn AG, Dickinson J, Ferretti V, Massoni V, Bulit F, Reboreda JC, Liljesthröm M, Quiroga M, Rakhimberdiev E, Ardia DR (2014) The interaction between clutch size and lay date changes across the Americas in Tachycineta swallows: what are the roles for direct selection, demography and organismal biology? Ecography 37:670–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Acadia UniversityWolfvilleCanada

Personalised recommendations