Do small hole nesting passerines detect cues left by a predator? A test on winter roosting sites

• Autorzy: Ekner A , Tryjanowski P.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Czy male dziuplaki rozpoznaja slady obecnosci drapieznika? Eksperyment z ptakami nocujacymi zima w skrzynkach legowych

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

There are a lot of studies about relationships between prey and predators. However most have focused on the influence of lethal predators on their prey. We suggested that non-lethal effects may also be very important for a complete understanding of prey-predator interactions. Among many influencing factors predation is important because it affects survival probability, especially in winter, which is a critical period for many passerines living in temperate zones. Apart from killing prey, predators may also have an indirect influence on the choice of nocturnal resting sites. Therefore, small passerines should detect and avoid places where a predator has operated previously. We tested this prediction using data on wintering small passerines, mainly on Great Tits. The study was performed during the winter season of 2005/2006 in western Poland. In the experiment, we put fur and mangled feathers in half of 100 randomly selected nest boxes. Boxes were checked every ten days, from January-March. The birds showed a significantly stronger preference towards "clean" nest boxes (without predator traces). It seems that non-lethal predator influence modifies winter dispersion of birds and wintering passerines may detect, by visual signals left behind, nest boxes where predation has previously occurred.

PL

Większość badań dotyczących relacji drapieżnik — ofiara skupia się na bezpośrednim (letalnym) wpływie drapieżników na swoje ofiary. Nieletalny (pośredni) wpływ, mimo iż często trudny do zarejestrowania, jest także istotny i nie powinien być pomijany. W prezentowanym eksperymencie analizowano właśnie taki wpływ potencjalnych drapieżników na wybór miejsc noclegowych przez ptaki nocujące w skrzynkach lęgowych. Badania prowadzone były w sezonie zimowym (2005/2006), krytycznym dla przetrwania ptaków żyjących w umiarkowanej strefie klimatycznej. Do losowo wybranych, nowo powieszonych skrzynek wrzucono poszarpane pióra ptaków oraz sierść drapieżnika, symulując w ten sposób jego obecność. Skrzynki sprawdzane były co dziesięć dni. Jako miejsce noclegowe dziuplaki znacznie bardziej preferowały skrzynki czyste, bez pozostawionych śladów sugerujących działanie drapieżnika. Ptaki najprawdopodobniej identyfikowały sierść i pióra z drapieżnikiem i w ten sposób unikały jego obecności. Dziuplaki odstraszać mogły również takie czynniki, jak obecność pasożytów, czy też innych ptaków w budkach. Jednakże wszystkie powody, dla których dziuplaki wybierały skrzynki bez sierści i poszarpanych piór były konsekwencją obecności potencjalnego drapieżnika, gdyż to właśnie on zostawia takie ślady. Z tego powodu, drapieżniki powinny być uwzględniane jako jeden z głównych czynników wpływających na zajmowanie skrzynek lęgowych nocą przez drobne ptaki wróblowe w okresie zimowym.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ornithology; Parus major; roosting site; Great Tit; detection; small bird; bird; winter; cavity nester; predator detection; nest box; hole nesting bird; predator

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: 43
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.107-111,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Ekner A

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznan, Poland

autor

Tryjanowski P.

Bibliografia

• Apfelbach R., Blanchard C. D., Blanchard R. J., Hayes R. A., McGregor I. S. 2005. The effect of predator odors in mammalian prey species: A review of field and laboratory studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 29: 1123-1144.
• Báldi A., Csörgõ T. 1994. Roosting site fidelity of Great Tits (Paras major) during winter. Acta zool. hung. 40: 359-367.
• Blanchard R. J., Nikulina J. N., Sakai R. R., McKittrick C., McEwen B., Blanchard D. C. 1998. Behavioral and endocrine change following chronic predatory stress. Physiol. Behav. 63: 561-569.
• Bradley J. E., Marzluff J. M. 2003. Rodents as nest predators: influences on predatory behavior and consequences to nesting birds. Auk 120: 1180-1187.
• Busse P., Olech B. 1968. On some problems of birds spending nights in nest boxes. Acta Ornithol. 11: 1-26.
• Carrascal L. M., Alonso C. L. 2006. Habitat use under latent predation risk. A case study with wintering forest birds. Oikos 112: 51-62.
• Carrascal L. M., Moreno E. 1992. Proximal costs and benefits of heterospecific social foraging in the Great Tit, Parus major. Can. J. Zool. 70: 1947-1952.
• Conover M. R. 2007. Predator — prey dynamics: the role of olfaction. Taylor & Francis CRC Press, New York.
• Danchin E., Giraldeau L. C., Valone T., Wagber R. H. 2004. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305: 487-491.
• Dell'Omo G., Fiore M., Alleva E. 1994. Strain differences in mouse response to odors of predator. Behav. Proc. 32: 105-116.
• Dickman C. R., Doncaster C. P. 1984. Responses of small mammals to red fox (Vulpes vulpes) odor. J. Zool. 204: 521-531.
• Ekman J. 1986. Tree use and predator vulnerability of wintering passerines. Ornis Scand. 17: 261-267.
• Fendt M. 2006. Exposure to urine of canids and felids, but not of herbivores, induces defensive vehavior in laboratory rats. J. Chem. Ecol. 32: 2617-2627.
• Figueiredo H. F., Bodie B. L., Tauchi M., Dolgas C. M., Herman J. P. 2003. Stress integration after acute and chronic predator stress: differential activation of central stress circuitry and sensitization of the Hypothalamo-Pituitary-Adrenocortical axis. Endocrinology 144: 5249-5258.
• Godard R. D., Bowers B. B., Wilson C. M. 2007. Eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis do not avoid nest boxes with chemical cues from two common nest predators. J. Avian Biol. 38: 128-131.
• Hogstad O. 1981. In nest predation really selecting for colonial breeding among Fieldfares Turdus pilaris? Ibis 125: 366-369.
• Hogstad O. 1995. Do avian and mammalian nest predators select for different nest dispersion patterns of Fieldfares Turdus pilaris? A 15-years study. Ibis 137: 484-489.
• Houston A. I., McNamara J. M. 1993. A theoretical investigation of the fat reserves and mortality levels of small birds in winter. Ornis Scand. 24: 205-219.
• Jenni L. 1991. Microclimate of roost sites selected by wintering Bramblings Fringilla montifringilla. Ornis Scand. 22: 327- 334.
• Jędrzejewski W., Jędrzejewska B. 1990. Effect of predator's visit on the spatial distribution of bank voles: experiment with weasels. Can. J. Zool. 68: 660-666.
• Jędrzejewski W., Rychlik L., Jędrzejewska B. 1993. Responses of bank voles to odor of seven species of predators: experimental data and their relevance to natural predator-vole relationship. Oikos 68: 251-257.
• Korpimäki E. 1987. Selection for nest-hole shift and tactics of breeding dispersal in Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus. J. Anim. Ecol. 56: 185-196.
• Kriśtín A., Mihál I., Urban P. 2001. Roosting of the great tit, Parus major and the nuthatch, Sitta europaea in nest boxes in an oak-hornbeam forest. Folia Zool. 50: 43-53.
• Kullberg C. 1998. Spatial niche dynamics under predation risk in the willow tit Parus montanus. J. Avian Biol. 29: 235-240.
• Ligon J. D., Carey C., Ligon S. H. 1988. Cavity roosting, philopatry, and cooperative breeding in the green wood- hoopoe may reflect a physiological trait. Auk 105: 123-127.
• Lima S. L. 1998. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator- prey interaction. What are the ecological effects of antipredator decision-making? Bioscience 48: 25-34.
• Lima S. L., Rattenborg N. C., Lesku J. H., Amlaner C. J. 2005. Sleeping under the risk of predation. Anim. Behav. 70: 723-736.
• Mazgajski T. D. 2002. Does the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major select holes for roosting? Pol. J. Ecol. 50: 99-103.
• Mazgajski T. D. 2007. Effect of old nest material on nest site selection and breeding parameters in secondary hole nesters — a review. Acta Ornithol. 42: 1-14.
• Mitchell W. A., Brown J. S. 1990. Density-dependent harvest rates by optimal foragers. Oikos 57: 180-190.
• Müller-Schwarze D. 1972. Responses of young black-tailed deer to predator odors. J. Mammal. 53: 393-394.
• Newton I., Dale L., Rothery P. 1997. Apparent lack of impact of Sparrowhawks on the breeding densities of some woodland songbirds. Bird Study 44: 129-135.
• Nilsson S. G., Johnsson K., Tjernberg M. 1991. Is avoidance by black woodpeckers of old nest holes due to predators? Anim. Behav. 8: 439-441.
• Norrdahl K., Korpimäki E. 1998. Fear in farmlands: how much does predator avoidance affect bird community structure? J. Avian Biol. 29: 79-85.
• Oppliger A., Richner H., Christe P. 1994 Effect of an ectoparasite on lay date, nest-site choice, desertion, and hatching success in the great tit (Parus major). Behav. Ecol. 5: 130-134.
• Paclik M., Weidinger K. 2007. Microclimate of tree cavities during winter nights-implications for roost site selection in birds. Int. J. Biometeorol. 51: 287-293.
• Pinowski J., Haman A., Jerzak L., Pinowska B., Barkowska M., Grodzki A., Haman K. 2006a. The thermal properties of some nests of the Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus. J. Thermal Biol. 31: 573-581.
• Pinowski J., Pinowska B., Barkowska M., Jerzak L., Zduniak P., Tryjanowski P. 2006b. Significance of the breeding season for autumnal nest-site selection by Tree Sparrows Passer montanus. Acta Ornithol. 41: 83-87.
• Pusenius J., Ostfeld R. S. 2000. Effect of stoat's presence and auditory cues indicating its presence on tree seedling predation by meadow voles. Oikos 91: 123-130.
• Rendell W. B., Verbeek N. A. M. 1996. Old nest material in nest boxes of tree swallows: effects on nest-site choice and nest building. Auk 113: 319-328.
• Roos S. 2002. Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia 133: 608-615.
• Sike T., Rózsa L. 2006. Owl pellet avoidance in Yellow-necked Mice Apodemus flavicolis and House Mice Mus musculus. Acta zool. hung. 52: 77-80.
• Silverin B. 1998. Stress responses in birds. Poultry Avian Biol. Rev. 9: 153-168.
• Sonerud G. A. 1985. Nest hole shift in Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus as defence against nest predation involving long-term memory in the predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 54: 179-192.
• Sorace A., Petrassi F., Consiglio C. 2004. Long-distance relocation of nestboxes reduces nest predation by Pine Marten Martes martes. Bird Study 51: 119-124.
• Stoddart D. M. 1980. Some responses of a free living community of rodents to the odors of predators. In: Muller- Schwarze D., Silverstein R. M. (eds). Chemical Signals: Vertebrates and Aquatic Invertebrates. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-10.
• Suhonen J. 1993. Predation risk influences the use of foraging sites by tits. Ecology 74: 1197-1203.
• Suhonen J., Norrdahl K., Korpimäki E. 1994. Avian predation risk modifies breeding bird community on a large farmland area. Ecology 75:1626-1634.
• Sutherland W. J. 1996. From individual behaviour to population ecology. Oxford Univ. Press.
• Trnka A., Prokop P. 2006. Do predators cause a change in passerine movement patterns as indicated by mist-net trapping rates? Ardea 94: 71-76.
• Tryjanowski P., Gołdyn B., Surmacki A. 2002. Influence of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes, Linnaeus 1758) on the distribution and number of breeding birds in an intensively used farmland. Ecol. Res. 17: 395-399.
• Watts B. D. 1991. Effects of predation risk on distribution within and between habitats in Savannah Sparrows. Ecology 72: 1515-1519.
• Weldon P. J. 1990. Responses of vertebrates to chemical of predators. In: MacDonald D. W., Muller-Schwarze D. (eds). Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 5. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, pp. 500-521.