Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 184, Issue 1, pp 115–126 | Cite as

Nosy neighbours: large broods attract more visitors. A field experiment in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca

  • Wiebke Schuett
  • Pauliina E. Järvistö
  • Sara Calhim
  • William Velmala
  • Toni Laaksonen
Behavioral ecology–original research

Abstract

Life is uncertain. To reduce uncertainty and make adaptive decisions, individuals need to collect information. Individuals often visit the breeding sites of their conspecifics (i.e., “prospect”), likely to assess conspecifics’ reproductive success and to use such information to identify high-quality spots for future breeding. We investigated whether visitation rate by prospectors and success of visited sites are causally linked. We manipulated the reproductive success (enlarged, reduced, and control broods) in a nest-box population of migratory pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca, in Finland. We measured the visitation rates of prospectors at 87 nest-boxes continuously from manipulation (day 3 after hatching) to fledging. 302 adult pied flycatchers prospected 9194 times on these manipulated nests (at least 78% of detected prospectors were successful breeders). While the number of visitors and visits was not influenced by the relative change in brood size we induced, the resulting absolute brood size predicted the prospecting behaviour: the larger the brood size after manipulation, the more visitors and visits a nest had. The parental provisioning rate at a nest and brood size pre-manipulation did not predict the number of visitors or visits post-manipulation. More visitors, however, inspected early than late nests and broods in good condition. Our study suggests that individuals collect social information when visiting conspecific nests during breeding and provides evidence that large broods attract more visitors than small broods. We discuss the results in light of individual decision-making by animals in their natural environments.

Keywords

Brood size Information use Prospecting RFID Social information 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Matias Ukkola, Kirsi Ukkola, and Jenna Ruohonen for assistance in the field. The project was funded by the Academy of Finland (grants to TL). We are grateful to Hannu Pöysä, Blandine Doligez, and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments.

Author contribution statement

All authors designed the experiment and conducted fieldwork. WS processed the data. WS, SC performed statistics. WS wrote the manuscript; other authors provided editorial advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The procedures had been approved by the Animal Experiment Board of Finland (animal experiment committee of Southern Finland, ID: VARELY/338/07.01/2012).

Data accessibility

Raw data are provided in the Electronic Supplementary Material (Online Resource 5, Table S4).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2017_3849_MOESM1_ESM.docx (181 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 180 kb)

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Glynn C (1986) Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature 323:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aparicio J, Bonal R, Muñoz A (2007) Experimental test on public information use in the colonial lesser kestrel. Evol Ecol 21:783–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arlt D, Pärt T (2008) Sex-biased dispersal: a result of a sex difference in breeding site availability. Am Nat 171:844–850. doi: 10.1086/587521 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollinger EK, Gavin TA (1989) The effects of site quality on breeding-site fidelity in bobolinks. Auk 106:584–594Google Scholar
  5. Boulinier T, Danchin E, Monnat JY, 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. Brooke MDL (1979) Differences in the quality of territories held by wheatears (Oenanthe oenanthe). J Anim Ecol 48:21–32. doi: 10.2307/4097 CrossRefGoogle 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 69:133–142. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00382.x CrossRefGoogle 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 (1999) Attendance of breeders and prospectors reflects the quality of colonies in the kittiwake Rissa tridactyla. Ibis 141:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calabuig G, Ortego J, Aparicio JM, Cordero PJ (2008) Public information in selection of nesting colony by lesser kestrels: which cues are used and when are they obtained? Anim Behav 75:1611–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calabuig G, Ortego J, Aparicio JM, Cordero PJ (2010) Intercolony movements and prospecting behaviour in the colonial lesser kestrel. Anim Behav 79:811–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cote J, Clobert J (2007) Social information and emigration: lessions from immigrants. Ecol Lett 10:411–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01032.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. John Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle 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 LA, 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, Gustafsson L (1999) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non-colonial, hole-nesting species, the collared flycatcher. J Anim Ecol 68:1193–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J (2002) Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297:1168–1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 66:973–988. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.2270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doligez B, Pärt T, Danchin E (2004) Prospecting in the collared flycatcher: gathering public information for future breeding habitat selection? Anim Behav 67:457–466. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dow H, Fredga S (1985) Selection of nest sites by a hole-nesting duck, the goldeneye Bucephala clangula. Ibis 127:16–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1985.tb05034.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eadie JM, Gauthier G (1985) Prospecting for nest sites by cavity-nesting ducks of the Genus Bucephala. Condor 87:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elmberg J, Nummi P, Pöysä H, Gunnarsson G, Sjöberg K (2005) Early breeding teal Anas crecca use the best lakes and have the highest reproductive success. Ann Zool Fenn 42:37–43Google Scholar
  25. Forsman JT, Thomson RL (2008) Evidence of information collection from heterospecifics in cavity-nesting birds. Ibis 150:409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forsman JT, Seppänen J-T, Nykänen IL (2012) Observed heterospecific clutch size can affect offspring investment decisions. Biol Let 8:341–343. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuller RJ (2012) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landscapes. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoover JP (2003) Decision rules for site fidelity in a migratory bird, the prothonotary warblers. Ecology 84:416–430. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0416:DRFSFI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Järvistö PE, Calhim S, Schuett W, Velmala W, Laaksonen T (2015) Foster, but not genetic, father plumage coloration has a temperature-dependent effect on offspring quality. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:335–346. doi: 10.1007/s00265-014-1846-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Järvistö PE, Calhim S, Schuett W, Velmala W, Laaksonen T (2016) Sex-dependent responses to increased parental effort in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:157–169. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-2034-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kivelä SM et al (2014) The past and the present in decision-making: the use of conspecific and heterospecific cues in nest site selection. Ecology 95:3428–3439. doi: 10.1890/13-2103.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klopfer PH, Ganzhorn JU (1985) Habitat selection: behavioral aspects. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, London, pp 435–453Google Scholar
  33. Lindén M, Gustafsson L, Pärt T (1992) Selection on fledging mass in the collared flycatcher and the great tit. Ecology 73:336–343. doi: 10.2307/1938745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1992) The pied flycatcher. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin TE (1998) Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under selection and adaptive? Ecology 79:656–670. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0656:AMPOCS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nager RG, Monaghan P, Houston DC (2000) Within-clutch trade-offs between the number and quality of eggs: experimental manipulations in gulls. Ecology 81:1339–1350. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1339:WCTOBT]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ottosson U, Backman J, Smith HG (2001) Nest-attenders in the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) during nestling rearing: a possible case of prospective resource exploration. Auk 118:1069–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Parejo D, Perez-Contreras T, Navarro C, Soler JJ, Aviles JM (2008) Spotless starlings rely on public information while visiting conspecific nests: an experiment. Anim Behav 75:483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pärt T, Doligez B (2003) Gathering public information for habitat selection: prospecting birds cue on parental activity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:1809–1813. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pärt T, Arlt D, Doligez B, Low M, Qvarnström A (2011) Prospectors combine social and environmental information to improve habitat selection and breeding success in the subsequent year. J Anim Ecol 80:1227–1235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Piper W (2011) Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1329–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ponchon A et al (2013) Tracking prospecting movements involved in breeding habitat selection: insights, pitfalls and perspectives. Methods Ecol Evol 4:143–150. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00259.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pöysä H (1999) Conspecific nest parasitism is associated with inequality in nest predation risk in the common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula). Behav Ecol 10:533–540. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.5.533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pöysä H (2006) Public information and conspecific nest parasitism in goldeneyes: targeting safe nests by parasites. Behav Ecol 17:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pöysä H, Ruusila V, Milonoff M, Virtanen J (2001) Ability to assess nest predation risk in secondary hole-nesting birds: an experimental study. Oecologia 126:201–207. doi: 10.1007/s004420000512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  49. Ratnayake CP, Morosinotto C, Ruuskanen S, Villers A, Thomson RL (2014) Passive integrated transponders (PIT) on a small migratory passerine bird: absence of deleterious short and long-term effects. Ornis Fennica 91:244–255Google Scholar
  50. Reed JM, Boulinier T, Danchin E, Oring LW (1999) Informed dispersal: prospecting by birds for breeding sites. Curr Ornithol 15:189–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schjørring S, Gregersen J, Bregnballe T (1999) Prospecting enhances breeding success of first-time breeders in the great cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis. Anim Behav 57:647–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Seppänen JT, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Thomson RL (2007) Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 88:1622–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Seppänen J-T, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Krams I, Salmi T (2011) New behavioural trait adopted or rejected by observing heterospecific tutor fitness. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:1736–1741. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stamps JA (1987) The effect of familiarity with a neighborhood on territory acquisition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 357:1549–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Velmala W et al (2015) Natural selection for earlier male arrival to breeding grounds through direct and indirect effects in a migratory songbird. Ecol Evol 5:1205–1213. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1423 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Ward MP (2005) Habitat selection by dispersing yellow-headed blackbirds: evidence of prospecting and the use of public information. Oecologia 145:650–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Zicus M, Hennes SK (1989) Nest prospecting by common goldeneyes. The Condor 91:807–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoological Institute, Biocenter GrindelUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Section of Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations