Advertisement

Seasonal variation in mobbing behaviour of passerine birds

  • Mylène DutourEmail author
  • Marion Cordonnier
  • Jean-Paul Léna
  • Thierry Lengagne
Original Article

Abstract

When they detect a predator, many birds exhibit mobbing behaviour and produce mobbing calls that quickly draw other prey against the predator. This anti-predator strategy often involves several species and, therefore, implies heterospecific communication. As fledging and nestling stages could be particularly targeted by predators, a high mobbing intensity is to be expected during the breeding season. While recognizing other species’ mobbing calls is critical to setting up this behaviour, to date, we have no information about the perception of these calls with regard to the season. Here, we used playbacks of mobbing calls to study the variation in response of the Great Tit (Parus major) and the Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) exposed to the mobbing calls of two heterospecific species, the Eurasian Nuthatch (Sitta europaea), and the Eurasian Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes). To investigate mobbing response seasonality, we conducted playback experiments during spring (breeding season) and autumn (non-breeding season). Contrary to most previous studies, we found that mobbing intensity was greater in autumn than in spring. Additionally, although neither Nuthatch nor Wren is related to the Tit family, we found that both Tit species responded more to the former than the latter species. At the heterospecific communication level, this study demonstrates a previously unsuspected level of complexity in the use of mobbing calls.

Keywords

Bird calls Interspecific recognition Interspecific communication Mobbing Passerines Paridae 

Zusammenfassung

Saisonale Schwankungen im Hassverhalten von Sperlingsvögeln.

Nach Entdecken eines Prädators zeigen viele Vögel Hassverhalten und produzieren Hassrufe, die schnell andere Beutetiere auf den Prädator lenken. Eine solche Anti-Prädator-Strategie bezieht oft mehrere Arten ein und setzt daher heterospezifische Kommunikation voraus. Da Prädatoren es besonders auf Flügglinge und Nestlinge abgesehen haben könnten, ist während der Brutzeit eine hohe Hassintensität zu erwarten. Während es für das Hassverhalten entscheidend ist, die Hassrufe von anderen Arten zu erkennen, fehlen bislang Informationen, inwieweit sich die Wahrnehmung dieser Rufe im Saisonverlauf verändert. Hier haben wir Playbacks von Hassrufen benutzt, um die Schwankungen in der Reaktion von Kohlmeisen (Parus major) und Blaumeisen (Cyanistes caeruleus) auf die Hassrufe zweier anderer Arten, Kleiber (Sitta europaea) und Zaunkönig (Troglodytes troglodytes), zu untersuchen. Um die Saisonabhängigkeit der Hassantwort zu erforschen, haben wir Playbackexperimente im Frühjahr (d.h. während der Brutzeit) und im Herbst (d.h. außerhalb der Brutzeit) durchgeführt. Im Gegensatz zu den meisten vorherigen Studien fanden wir, dass das Hassverhalten im Herbst intensiver war als im Frühjahr. Zudem fanden wir, dass beide Meisenarten stärker auf die Rufe des Kleibers als auf die des Zaunkönigs reagierten, obwohl keine der beiden Arten mit den Meisen verwandt ist. Auf der heterospezifischen Kommunikationsebene zeigt diese Studie eine zuvor unvermutete Komplexität der Verwendung von Hassrufen auf.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by French Ministry of Research and Higher Education funding (to M.D. PhD grants 2015–2018). It was conducted with the approval of the Prefecture du Rhône, in accordance with the current laws in France. We thank David Wheatcroft for providing the wren mobbing call data. We thank two anonymous referees whose comments helped us greatly improve the quality of this article. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author following a reasonable request.

References

  1. Altmann SA (1956) Avian mobbing behavior and predator recognition. Condor 58:241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betts MG, Hadley AS, Doran PJ (2005) Avian mobbing response is restricted by territory boundaries: experimental evidence from two species of forest warblers. Ethology 111:821–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billings AC, Greene E, Lucia Jensen SM (2015) Are chickadees good listeners? Antipredator responses to raptor vocalizations. Anim Behav 110:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson NV, Healy SD, Templeton CN (2017) A comparative study of how British tits encode predator threat in their mobbing calls. Anim Behav 125:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiver I, Jaramillo CA, Morton ES (2017) Mobbing behavior and fatal attacks on snakes by Fasciated Antshrikes (Cymbilaimus lineatus). J Ornithol 158:935–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coss RG, Ramakrishnan U (2000) Perceptual aspects of leopard recognition by wild bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Behaviour 137:315–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creswell W (1993) Escape responses by redshanks, Tringa totanus, on attack by avian predators. Anim Behav 46:609–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cully JF, Ligon JD (1986) Seasonality of mobbing intensity in the Pinyon Jay. Ethology 71:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curio E, Regelmann K (1986) Predator harassment implies a real deadly risk: a reply to Hennessy. Ethology 72:75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. Ethology 48:184–202Google Scholar
  11. da Cunha FCR, Fontenelle JCR, Griesser M (2017) The presence of conspecific females influences male-mobbing behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denson RD (1979) Owl predation on a mobbing crow. Wilson Bull 91:133Google Scholar
  13. Doran PJ, Gulezian PZ, Betts MG (2005) A test of the mobbing playback method for estimating bird reproductive success. J Field Ornithol 76:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dutour M, Lena JP, Lengagne T (2016) Mobbing behaviour varies according to predator dangerousness and occurrence. Anim Behav 119:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutour M, Lena JP, Lengagne T (2017a) Mobbing behaviour in a passerine community increases with prevalence in predator diet. Ibis 159:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutour M, Léna JP, Lengagne T (2017b) Mobbing calls: a signal transcending species boundaries. Anim Behav 131:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekman J (1989) Ecology of non-breeding social-systems of Parus. Wilson Bull 101:263–288Google Scholar
  18. Flasskamp A (1994) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. V. An experimental test of the ‘move on’ hypothesis. Ethology 96:322–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodale E, Kotagama SW (2005) Alarm calling in Sri Lankan mixed-species bird flocks. Auk 122:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamerstrom F (1957) The influence of a hawk’s appetite on mobbing. Condor 59:192–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinde RA (1952) The behaviour of the great tit (Parus major) and some other related species. Behaviour Suppl 2:1–153Google Scholar
  22. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monog 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennedy RA, Evans CS, McDonald PG (2009) Individual distinctiveness in the mobbing call of a cooperative bird, the noisy miner Manorina melanocephala. J Avian Biol 40:481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleindorfer S, Fessl B, Hoi H (2005) Avian nest defence behaviour: assessment in relation to predator distance and type, and nest height. Anim Behav 69:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krams I, Krama T (2002) Interspecific reciprocity explains mobbing behaviour of the breeding chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs. Proc R Soc B 269:2345–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2007) Long-lasting mobbing of the pied flycatcher increases the risk of nest predation. Behav Ecol 18:1082–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krams I, Berzins A, Krama T (2009) Group effect in nest defence behaviour of breeding pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 77:513–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kroodsma DE, Byers BE, Goodale E, Johnson S, Liu WC (2001) Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. Anim Behav 61:1029–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lind L, Jöngren F, Nilsson J, Alm DS, Strandmark A (2005) Information, predation risk and foraging decisions during mobbing in Great Tits Parus major. Ornis Fenn 82:89–96Google Scholar
  30. Lucas J, Freeberg T, Krishnan A, Long G (2002) A comparative study of avian auditory brainstem responses: correlations with phylogeny and vocal complexity, and seasonal effects. J Comp Physiol A 188:981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lucas JR, Freeberg TM, Long GR, Krishnan A (2007) Seasonal variation in avian auditory evoked responses to tones: a comparative analysis of Carolina chickadees, tufted titmice, and white-breasted nuthatches. J Comp Physiol A 193:201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magrath RD, Haff TM, McLachlan JR, Igic B (2015) Wild birds learn to eavesdrop on heterospecific alarm calls. Curr Biol 25:2047–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McDonald PG (2012) Cooperative bird differentiates between the calls of different individuals, even when vocalizations were from completely unfamiliar individuals. Biol Lett 8:365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risk and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nijman V (2004) Seasonal variation in naturally occurring mobbing behaviour of Drongos (Dicruridae) towards two avian predators. Ethol Ecol Evol 16:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nocera JJ, Taylor PD, Ratcliffe LM (2008) Inspection of mob-calls as sources of predator information: response of migrant and resident birds in the Neotropics. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1769–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nolen MT, Lucas JR (2009) Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice. Anim Behav 77:1137–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pettifor RA (1990) The effects of avian mobbing on a potential predator, the European kestrel, Falco tinnunculus. Anim Behav 39:821–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Picman J, Leonard M, Horn A (1988) Antipredation role of clumped nesting by marsh-nesting red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Randler C (2012) A possible phylogenetically conserved urgency response of great tits (Parus major) towards allopatric mobbing calls. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Redondo T (1989) Avian nest defence: theoretical models and evidence. Behaviour 111:161–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shedd DH (1982) Seasonal variation and function of mobbing and related antipredator behaviors of the American Robin (Turdus migratorius). Auk 99:342–346Google Scholar
  43. Shedd DH (1983) Seasonal variation in mobbing intensity in the Black-capped Chickadee. Wilson Bull 95:343–348Google Scholar
  44. Sieving KE, Contreras TA, Maute KL (2004) Heterospecific facilitation of forest-boundary crossing by mobbing understory birds in north-central Florida. Auk 121:738–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suzuki TN (2016) Referential calls coordinate multi-species mobbing in a forest bird community. J Ethol 34:79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Templeton CN, Greene E (2007) Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific Chickadee mobbing alarm calls. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5479–5482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tremblay MA, St Clair CC (2009) Factors affecting the permeability of transportation and riparian corridors to the movements of songbirds in an urban landscape. J Appl Ecol 46:1314–1322Google Scholar
  49. Weary DM, Kramer DL (1995) Response of eastern chipmunks to conspecific alarm calls. Anim Behav 49:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wheatcroft D, Price TD (2008) Reciprocal cooperation in avian mobbing: playing nice pays. T Ecol Evol 23:416–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wheatcroft D, Price TD (2013) Learning and signal copying facilitate communication among bird species. Proc R Soc B 280:20123070CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, ENTPE, UMR5023 LEHNAVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations