Nest defence intensity in House Sparrows Passer domesticus in relation to parental quality and brood value

• Autorzy: Klvanova A. , Horakova D. , Exnerova A.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Intensywność obrony gniazda u wróbla

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We investigated whether brood value (laying date, brood size, nestling age and condition) and parental quality (condition, male badge size) affect experimentally provoked nest defence in House Sparrows in the Czech Republic. We included the badge size (a melanin-based throat feather patch) because it serves as a signal of social status, age and condition. We presented a stuffed Black-billed Magpie Pica pica to 19 pairs of sparrows. To assess the defence intensity we used the „risk index", increasing with time spent reacting and riskiness of the reaction (number of approaches and attacks), while declining with increasing distance from the predator. Females did not adjust their nest defence to the brood value and males did so only partially, tending to defend the early broods more intensely, which marginally supports the "value of offspring hypothesis". The birds did not adjust their nest defence to quality or defence intensity of their partners, thus the "differential allocation hypothesis" was not supported. Male nest defence was more intense than in females and increased with male badge size. As male contribution to nest defence may affect the breeding success, we hypothesize the badge size could be used as a signal of nest defence intensity used by females.

PL

W pracy analizowano dwa czynniki, które mogą wpływać na intensywność obrony gniazda u wróbla: jakość rodziców (określoną jako ich kondycja oraz wielkość czarnego krawata samca) oraz „potencjał” lęgu (określony jako liczba piskląt, ich kondycja i data złożenia jaj). W eksperymencie na dachu skrzynki lęgowej 19 par wróbli umieszczano wypchaną srokę (symulacja ataku drapieżnika na lęg) i przez 20 min określano ich reakcję. Aby ocenić intensywność obrony gniazda do analiz wykorzystano obliczony „wskaźnik ryzyka”, który bierze pod uwagę m. in. długość reakcji oraz agresywność ptaków. Samce broniły lęgów intensywniej niż samice (Tab. 1), przy czym intensywność obrony zwiększała się wraz z wielkością krawata samca (Fig. 1). Stwierdzono, że samice nie zwiększały swej obrony w związku z „potencjałem” lęgu, zaś samce nieznacznie silniej broniły lęgów wczesnych (Tab. 2).

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: 46
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.47-54,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Klvanova A.

• Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, CZ 122 48 Prague 2, Czech Republic

autor

Horakova D.

• Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, CZ 122 48 Prague 2, Czech Republic

autor

Exnerova A.

• Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, CZ 122 48 Prague 2, Czech Republic

Bibliografia

• Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press.
• Andersson M., Wicklund C. G., Rundgren H. 1980. Parental defense of offspring: a model and an example. Anim. Behav. 28: 536-542.
• Bartlett T. L., Mock D. W., Schwagmeyer P. L. 2005. Division of labor: incubation and biparental care in house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Auk 122: 835-842.
• Biermann G. C., Robertson R. J. 1983. Residual reproductive value and parental investment. Anim. Behav. 31: 311-312.
• Brunton D. H. 1990. The effects of nesting stage, sex, and type of predator on parental nest defense by Killdeer (Charadrius vociferas): testing models of avian parental defense. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26: 181-190.
• Buchanan K. L., Evans M. R., Roberts M. L., Rowe L., Goldsmith A. R. 2010. Does testosterone determine dominance in the house sparrow Passer domesticus? An experimental test. J. Avian. Biol. 41: 445-451.
• Burley N. T. 1986. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am. Nat. 127: 415-445.
• Clutton-Brock T. H. 1991. The evolution of parental care. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
• Curio E., Ernst U., Vieth W 1978. Cultural transmission of enemy recognition: one function of mobbing. Science 202: 899-901.
• Curio E., Regelmann K., Zimmerman U. 1984. Defence of first and second broods by Great Tit (Parus major) parents: a test of predictive sociobiology. Z. Tierpsychol. 66: 100- 127.
• Ducrest A.-L., Keller L., Roulin A. 2008. Pleiotropy in the melanocortin system, coloration and behavioural syndromes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 502-510.
• Fisher R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Clarendon Press.
• Fitze P. S., Richner H. 2002. Differential effects of a parasite on ornamental structures based on melanins and carotenoids. Behav. Ecol. 13: 401-407.
• Gonzalez G., Sorci G., Smith L. C., de Lope F. 2001. Testosterone and sexual signalling in male house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 557-562.
• Gonzalez G., Sorci G., Smith L. C., de Lope F. 2002. Social control and physiological cost of cheating in status signalling male house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Ethology 108: 289-302.
• Griffith S. C., Owens I. P. F., Burke T. 1999. Female choice and annual reproductive success favour less-ornamented male house sparrows. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 765-770.
• Griffith S. C., Pryke S. R. 2006. Benefits to females of assessing color displays. In: Hill G. E., McGraw K. J. (eds). Bird Coloration. Vol. II. Function and Evolution. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 233-270.
• Griggio M., Matessi G., Pilastro A. 2003. Male rock sparrow (Petronia petronia) nest defence correlates with female ornament size. Ethology 109: 659-669.
• Hatch M. I.1997. Variation in Song Sparrow nest defense: individual consistency and relationship to nest success. Condor 99: 282-289.
• Hill G. E. 2002. A red bird in a brown bag: the function and evolution of colorful plumage in the house finch. Oxford Univ. Press.
• Hill G. E. 2006. Female mate choice for ornamental coloration. In: Hill G. E., McGraw K. J. (eds). Bird Coloration. Vol. II. Function and Evolution. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 137-200.
• Hogstad O. 2005. Sex-differences in nest defence in Fieldfares Turdus pilaris in relation to their size and physical condition. Ibis 147: 375-380.
• Hoi H., Václav R., Slobodová D. 2003. Postulating sexual selection in house sparrows: can females estimate "good fathers" according to their early paternal effort? Folia Zool. 52: 299-308.
• Jawor J. M., Breitwisch R. 2003. Melanin ornaments, honesty, and sexual selection. Auk 120: 249-265.
• Knight R. L., Temple S. A. 1986. Nest defense in the American Goldfinch. Anim. Behav. 34: 887-897.
• Knight R. L., Temple S. A. 1988. Nest-defense behavior in the Red-winged Blackbird. Condor 90: 193-200.
• Kopisch A. D., Schwagmeyer P. L., Mock D. W. 2005. Individual consistency in parental effort across multiple stages of care in the House Sparrow, Passer domesticus. Ethology 111: 1062-1070.
• Lubjuhn T., Curio E., Muth S. C., Briin J., Epplen J. T. 1993. Influence of extra-pair paternity on parental care in great tit (Parus major). In: Pena S. D. J., Chakraborty R., Epplen J. T., Jeffreys A. J. (eds). DNA fingerprinting: state of the science. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, pp. 379-385.
• MathSoft 1997. S-plus 4. Guide to statistics: data analysis. MathSoft Inc, Seattle, WA.
• Mazuc J., Chastel O., Sorci G. 2003. No evidence for differential maternal allocation to offspring in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Behav. Ecol. 14: 340-346.
• Møller A. P. 1987. Variation in badge size in male house sparrows Passer domesticus: evidence for status signalling. Anim. Behav. 35: 1637-1644.
• Møller A. P., Alatalo R. V. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 85-91.
• Møller A. P., Erritzoe J. 1992. Acquisition of breeding coloration depends on badge size in male house sparrows Passer domesticus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 31: 271-277.
• Montgomerie R. D., Weatherhead P. J. 1988. Risks and rewards of nest defense by parent birds. Q. Rev. Biol. 63: 167-187.
• Nakagawa S., Ockendon N., Gillespie D. O. S., Hatchwell B. J., Burke T. 2007a. Assessing the function of house sparrow's bib size using a flexible meta-analysis method. Behav. Ecol. 18: 831-840.
• Nakagawa S., Ockendon N., Gillespie D. O. S., Hatchwell B. J., Burke T. 2007b. Does the badge of status influence parental care and investment in house sparrows? An experimental test. Oecologia 153: 749-760.
• Peig J., Green A. J. 2009. New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: the scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118: 1883-189.
• Pilastro A., Griggio M., Matessi G. 2003. Male rock sparrows adjust their breeding strategy according to female ornamentation: parental or mating investment? Anim. Behav. 66: 265-271.
• Poiani A., Yorke M. 1989. Predator harassment: More evidence on the deadly risk. Ethology 83: 167-169.
• Quesada J., Senar J. C. 2007. The role of melanin- and carotenoid-based plumage coloration in nest defence in the Great Tit. Ethology 113: 640-647.
• Reyer H.-U., Fischer W., Steck P., Nabuion T., Kessler P. 1998. Sex-specific nest defense in house sparrow (Passer domesticus) varies with badge size of males. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42: 93-99.
• Ricklefs R. E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1-48.
• Rossmanith E., Höntsch K., Blaum N., Jeltsch F. 2007. Reproductive success and nestling diet in the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (Picoides minor): the early bird gets the caterpillar. J. Ornithol. 148: 323-332.
• Rytkönen S., Kvist L., Mikkonen R., Oreli M. 2007. Intensity of nest defence is not related to degree of paternity in the willow tit Parus montanus. J. Avian Biol. 38: 273-277.
• Senar J. C. 2006. Bird colors as intrasexual signals of aggression
• and dominance. In: Hill G. E., McGraw K. J. (eds). Bird Coloration. Vol. II. Harvard Univ. Press, pp. 125-193.
• Smith J. N. M., Arcese P., McLean I. G. 1984. Age, experience, and enemy recognition by wild Song Sparrow population. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 101-106.
• Stewart I. R. K., Hanschu R. D., Burke T., Westneat D. F. 2006. Tests of ecological, phenotypic, and genetic correlates of extra-pair paternity in the house sparrow. Condor 108: 399-413.
• Veiga J. P. 1993. Badge size, phenotypic quality, and reproductive success in the house sparrow: a study on honest advertisement. Evolution 47: 1161-1170.
• Veiga J. P., Boto L. 2000. Low frequency of extra-pair fertilisations in house sparrows breeding at high densities. J. Avian Biol. 31: 237-244.
• Veiga J. P., Euerta M. 1996. Nutritional constraints determine the expression of a sexual trait in the house sparrow, Passer domesticus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 229-234.
• Voltura K. M., Schwagmeyer P. L., Mock D. W. 2002. Parental feeding rates in the house sparrow, Passer domesticus: are larger-badged males better fathers? Ethology 108: 1011-1022.
• Weatherhead P. J. 1990. Nest defense as shareable paternal care in Red-winged Blackbirds. Anim. Behav. 39: 1173-1178.
• Westneat D. F., Sargent R. C. 1996. Sex and parenting: the effects of sexual conflict and parentage on parental strategies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 87-91.
• Whitekiller R. R., Westneat D. F., Schwagmeyer P. L., Mock D. W. 2000. Badge size and extra-pair fertilisations in the house sparrow. Condor 102: 342-348.
• Wiklund C. G. 1990. The adaptive significance of nest defence by merlin, Falco columbarius, males. Anim. Behav. 40: 244-253.
• Windt E., Curio E. 1986. Clutch defence in Great Tit (Parus major) pairs and the concord fallacy. Ethology 72: 236-242.
• Winkler D. W. 1992. Causes and consequences of variation in parental defense behavior by Tree Swallows. Condor 94: 502-520.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3161/000164511X589910