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.
Brood size Information use Prospecting RFID Social information
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
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).
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.
Bollinger EK, Gavin TA (1989) The effects of site quality on breeding-site fidelity in bobolinks. Auk 106:584–594Google Scholar
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
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
Bruinzeel LW, Van de Pol M (2004) Site attachment of floaters predicts success in territory acquisition. Behav Ecol 15:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadiou B (1999) Attendance of breeders and prospectors reflects the quality of colonies in the kittiwake Rissa tridactyla. Ibis 141:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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
Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J (2002) Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297:1168–1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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.2002.2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller RJ (2012) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landscapes. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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/s00265-014-1846-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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:10.1890/13-2103.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klopfer PH, Ganzhorn JU (1985) Habitat selection: behavioral aspects. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, London, pp 435–453Google Scholar
Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1992) The pied flycatcher. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
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
Piper W (2011) Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1329–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
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
Reed JM, Boulinier T, Danchin E, Oring LW (1999) Informed dispersal: prospecting by birds for breeding sites. Curr Ornithol 15:189–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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.2010.1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps JA (1987) The effect of familiarity with a neighborhood on territory acquisition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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