Nest defence against conspecific intruders in the Common Pochard Aythya ferina: natural observations and an experimental test

• Autorzy: Honza M. , Pialkova R. , Albrecht T. , Neuzilova S.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Obrona gniazda przed wewnątrzgatunkowym pasożytnictwem lęgowym u głowienki

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The reproductive behaviour of brood parasitic birds has been of long-standing interest to evolutionary biologists, but some key features of this breeding tactic are largely unknown in particular species. Here we investigated antiparasitic tactics in ground nesting Common Pochard Aythya ferina females towards intraspecific brood parasitism. Using a conspecific female dummy we experimentally simulated a situation where a female returning to her own nest is confronted with a conspecific parasite. The behaviour of the tested females towards the experimental dummy was compared with their responses towards the stuffed female Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus used as a control. The reactions towards both dummies were similar: Pochard females typically swam silently around their nests and observed the dummy. The lack of differences between the measured parameters recorded in the experiments with conspecific and pheasant dummies may indicate that female Pochards do not recognize the conspecific intruder as a specific threat. In addition, the responses of the incubating female towards the conspecific female on her nest were studied using continuous video recordings. The defence was not sufficient, since the intruders were never expelled from the nest. The only rejection technique recorded was that of the parasitic egg being removed from the nest with the aid of the bill. The data indicate that active sophisticated anti-parasitic tactics have not evolved in Pochards, although there is some level of defence towards intruding conspecific parasites.

PL

Badano zachowania samic głowienek w obecności potencjalnych pasożytów lęgowych, w okolicy własnego gniazda oraz reakcje na podrzucanie jaj przez inne samice. Prace prowadzono na stawach rybnych w Czechach. Przeprowadzono eksperyment z wykorzystaniem wypchanych ptaków oraz analizowano nagrania wideo zachowania gniazdujących samic, dzięki czemu poznano liczbę odwiedzin gniazd przez inne głowienki, ich czas, oraz liczbę podrzuconych jaj i ich losy. W eksperymencie symulowano sytuacje, gdy samica wracająca do gniazda napotyka na inną samice swojego gatunku, jako kontrolę prezentowano samicę bażanta. Oba warianty prezentowano w losowej kolejności w odstępie 1 dnia. Reakcja na prezentowaną głowienkę jak i bażanta była podobna — samica pływała cicho wokół gniazda i obserwowała „intruza”. Zarówno czas do momentu powrotu samicy do gniazda, jak i ten spędzony między jej pojawieniem się a rozpoczęciem inkubacji był podobny dla obu wariantów eksperymentu. Przy pomocy technik wideo zarejestrowano łącznie 31 przypadków wizyt i podrzucania jaj do 12 gniazd. Obserwacje te były rozłożone równomiernie w ciągu dnia (Fig. 1). Obca samica na gnieździe starała się zepchnąć gospodarza, który rzadko bronił się np. dziobiąc intruza. W 12 przypadkach możliwe było rozpoznanie jaj obcych samic: złożone wprost w zniesienie gospodarza były normalnie wysiadywane, złożone obok jaj gospodarza — w trzech przypadkach były wysiadywane, zaś w czterech — wyrzucone przez gospodarza. Autorzy sugerują, że brak specjalnej taktyki ochrony gniazda w sytuacji pojawienia się w jego okolicy innej samicy tego samego gatunku może być pozorny i jest właśnie rodzajem obrony związanym z unikaniem pokazania położenia własnego gniazda. Dodatkowym czynnikiem, który powinien być wzięty pod uwagę w dalszych badaniach związanych z obroną przed wewnątrzgatunkowym pasożytnictwem lęgowym jest spokrewnienie gospodarza i pasożyta.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

nest; defense; conspecific intruder; parasite; brood parasitism; intruder; bird; Common Pochard; Aythya ferina; breeding strategy; egg rejection; natural observation; experimental test

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 44
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.151-158,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Honza M.

• Institute of Vertebrate Biology, AS CR, v.v.i., Kvetna 8, 603 65 Brno, Czech Republic

autor

Pialkova R.

• Institute of Vertebrate Biology, AS CR, v.v.i., Kvetna 8, 603 65 Brno, Czech Republic

autor

Albrecht T.

• Institute of Vertebrate Biology, AS CR, v.v.i., Kvetna 8, 603 65 Brno, Czech Republic
• Charles University Prague, CZ-12844 Prague, Czech Republic

autor

Neuzilova S.

• Charles University Prague, CZ-12844 Prague, Czech Republic

Bibliografia

• Ahlund M. 2005. Behavioural tactics at nest visits differ between parasites and hosts in a brood parasitic duck. Anim. Behav. 70: 433-440.
• Ahlund M., Andersson M. 2001. Brood parasitism: Female ducks can double their reproduction. Nature 414: 600-601.
• Amat J A. 1985. Nest parasitism of Pochard Aythya ferina by Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina. Ibis 127: 255-262.
• Andersson M., Ahlund M. 2000. Host-parasite relatedness shown by protein fingerprinting in a brood parasitic birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97: 13188-13193.
• Andersson M., Eriksson E. 1982. Nest parasitism in goldeneyes Bucephala clangula: some evolutionary aspects. Am. Nat. 120: 1-16.
• Andersson M., Waldeck P. 2007. Host-parasite kinship in a female-philopatric bird population: evidence from relatedness trend analysis. Mol. Ecology 16: 2797-2806
• Banks A. J., Martin T. E. 2001. Host activity and the risk of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Behav. Ecology 12: 31-40.
• Bártol I., Karcza Z., Moskat C., Rřskaft E., Kisbenedek T. 2002. Responses of great reed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus to experimental brood parasitism: the effects of a cuckoo
• Cuculus canorus dummy and egg mimicry. J Avian biol. 33: 420-425.
• Bischoff C. M., Murphy M. T. 1993. The detection of and response to experimental intraspecific brood parasitism in Eastern Kingbirds. Anim. Behav. 45: 631-638.
• Brown C. R. 1984. Laying eggs in a neighbour's nest: benefit and cost of colonial nesting in swallows. Science 224: 518- 519.
• Brown C. R., Brown M. B. 1989. Behavioral dynamics of intraspecific brood parasitism in colonial cliff swallows. Anim. Behaviour 37: 777-796.
• Clawson R. L., Hartman G. W., Fredrickson L. H. 1979. Dump nesting in a Missouri wood duck population. J. Wild. Manage. 43: 347-355.
• Curio C. 1978. Adaptive significance of avian mobbing. 1. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Zeitschrift fur tierpsychologie - Journal of Comp. Ethology 48: 175-183.
• Dugger B. D., Blums P. 2001. Effect of conspecific brood parasitism on host fitness for Tufted Duck and Common Pochard. Auk 118: 717-726.
• Dyrcz A., Halupka K. 2007. Why does frequency of nest parasitism by the Cuckoo differ considerably between two populations of warblers living in the same habitat? Ethology 113: 209-213.
• Emlen S. T., Wrege P. H. 1986. Forced copulations and intra-specific parasitism: two costs of social living in the white- fronted bee-eater. Ethology 71: 2-29.
• Erskine M. 1990. Joint laying in Bucephala ducks: parasitism nest-site competition? Ornis Scand. 21: 52-56.
• Gill S. A., Grieef P. M., Staib L. M., Sealy S. G. 1997. Does nest defence deter or facilitate cowbird parasitism? A test of the nesting-cue hypothesis. Ethology 103: 56-71.
• Gill S. A., Sealy S. G. 1996. Nest defence by yellow warblers: recognition of a brood parasite and an avian nest predator. Behaviour 133: 263-282.
• Gross M. R. 1984. Sunfish, salmon, and the evolution of alternative reproductive strategies and tactics in fishes. In: Pots G. W., Wotton R. J. (eds). Fish Reproduction: Strategies and Tactics. Academic Press, London, pp. 55-75.
• Honza M., Sicha V., Procházka P., Ležalová R. 2006. Host nest defence against a color-dimorphic brood parasite: great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) versus common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). J. Ornithol. 147: 629-637.
• Honza M., Táborsky B., Táborsky M., Teuschl Y., Vogl W., Moksnes A., Røskaft E. 2002. Behaviour of female common cuckoos Cuculus canorus in the vicinity of host nests before and during laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim. Behav. 64: 861-868.
• Hořák D., Klvaňa P. 2008. An observation on conspecific egg adoption during a parasitic event in the Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula). Sylvia 44: 63-66.
• Jackson W. M. 1992. Estimating conspecific nest parasitism in the northern masked weaver based on within-female variability in egg appearance. Auk 109: 435-443.
• Kendra P. E., Roth R. R., Talamy D. W. 1988. Conspecific brood parasitism in the House Sparrow. Wilson Bull. 100: 80-90.
• Lank D. B., Mineau P., Rockwell R. F., Cooke F. 1989. Intraspecific nest parasitism and extra-pair copulation in lesser snow geese. Anim. Behav. 37: 74-89.
• McKiney F. 1954. An observation on Redhead parasitism. Willson Bull. 66: 146-148.
• McLean I. G., Maloney R. F. 1998. Brood parasitism, recognition, and response: the options. In: Rothstein S. I., Robinson S. K (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts. Studies in coevolution, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, pp. 255-269.
• Moksnes A., Elvertø P. A. 2006. Host response against natural and experimental conspecific brood parasitism in the Starling Sturnus vulgaris. Ornis Fennica 83: 139-144.
• Moksnes A., Røskaft E., Korsnes L. 1993. Rejection of cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs by meadow pipits (Anthus pratensis). Behav. Ecol. 4: 120-127.
• Møller A. P. 1987. Intraspecific nest parasitism and anti-parasite behaviour in swallows, Hirundo rustica. Anim. Behav. 35: 247-254.
• Montgomerie R. D., Weatherhead P. J. 1988. Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q. Rev. Biol. 63: 167-186.
• Neudorf D. L., Sealy S. G. 1992. Reactions of four passerine species to threats of predation and cowbird parasitism: enemy recognition or generalized response? Behaviour 123: 84-105.
• Ost M., Smith B. D., Kilpi M. 2008. Social and maternal factors affecting duckling survival in eiders Somateria mollissima. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 315-325.
• Paasivaara A., Poysa H. 2007. Survival of common goldeneye Bucephala clangula ducklings in relation to weather, timing of breeding, brood size, and female condition. J. Avian Biol. 38: 144-152.
• Pienkowski M. W., Evans P. R. 1982. Breeding-behaviour, productivity and survival of colonial and non-colonial Shelducks Tadorna tadorna. Ornis Scand. 13: 101-116.
• Power H. W., Kennedy E. D., Romagnano L. C., Lombardo M. P., Hoffenberg A. S., Stouffer P. C., McGuire T. R. 1989. The parasitism insurance hypothesis — why Starlings leave space for parasitic eggs. Condor 91: 753-765.
• Robertson R. J., Norman R. F. 1977. Function and evolution of aggressive host behavior towards brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Can. J. Zool. 55: 508-518.
• Rohwer F. C. 1992. The evolution of reproductive patterns in waterfowl. In: Batt B., Afton D., Anderson A. D., Ankney M. G., Johnson C. D., Kadlec D. M., Krapu J. A Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp: 486-539.
• Røskaft E., Moksnes A., Stokke B. G., Moskat C., Honza M. 2002. The spatial habitat structure of host populations explains the pattern of rejection behavior in hosts and parasitic adaptations in cuckoos. Behav. Ecol. 13: 163-168.
• Røskaft E., Orians G. H., Beletsky L. D. 1990. Why do red- winged blackbirds accept eggs of brown-headed cow- birds? Evol. Ecol. 4: 35-42.
• Sayler R. D. 1992. Brood parasitism in waterfowl. In: Batt B., Afton D., Anderson A. D., Ankney M. G., Johnson C. D., Kadlec D. M., Krapu J. A. (eds). Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 290-322.
• Sealy S. G., Neudorf D. L., Hobson K. A., Gill A. A. 1998. Nest defence by potential hosts of the brown-headed cowbird: methodological approaches, benefits of defence, and coevolution. In: Rothstein S. I., Robinson S. K. (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts. Studies in coevolution. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, Oxford, pp. 194-211.
• Semel B., Sherman P. W. 2001. Intraspecific parasitism and nest- site competition in wood ducks. Anim. Behav. 61: 787- 803.
• Smith J. N. M., Arcese P., McLean I. G. 1984. Age, experience, and enemy recognition by wild Song Sparrows. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 101-106.
• Sorenson M. D. 1993. Parasitic egg laying in canvasbacks: frequency, success and individual behaviour. Auk 110: 57-69.
• Sorenson M. D. 1998. Patterns of parasitic egg laying and typical nesting in Redhead and Canvasback Ducks. In: Rothstein, S. I., Robinson, S. K (eds). Parasitic birds and their hosts. Studies in coevolution. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, Oxford, pp. 357-375.
• Stawarczyk T. 1995. [Reproductive strategy of ducks breeding at high densities in Milicz fishponds]. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis nr 1790. Prace Zoologiczne 31: 1-110.
• Weller M. W 1959. Parasitic egg laying in the Redhead (Aythya americana) and other North American Anatidae. Ecol. Monogr. 29: 333-365.
• Yom-Tov Y. 2001. An updated list and some comments on the occurrence of intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Ibis 143: 133-143.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3161/000164509X482713