Do non-direct heterospecific cues of avian predator activity alter reproductive modes of a passerine bird?

References

• Agrawal AA, Laforsch C, Tollrian R. 1999. Transgenerational induction of defences in animals and plants. Nature 401(6748):60–63. DOI:10.1038/43425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alasahan S, Copur G. 2016. Hatching characteristics and growth performance of eggs with different egg shapes. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 18(1):1–8. DOI:10.1590/1516-635X1801001-008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amo L, Tomás G, López-García A. 2017. Role of chemical and visual cues of mammalian predators in nest defense in birds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 71(3):49. DOI:10.1007/s00265-017-2281-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bańbura M, Glądalski M, Kaliński A, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Bańbura J. 2018. A consistent long-lasting pattern of spatial variation in egg size and shape in blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus). Frontiers in Zoology 15(1):34. DOI:10.1186/s12983-018-0279-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barta Z, Székely T. 1997. The optimal shape of avian eggs. Functional Ecology 11(5):656–662. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2435.1997.00136.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basso A, Richner H. 2015. Effects of nest predation risk on female incubation behavior and offspring growth in great tits. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69(6):977–989. DOI:10.1007/s00265-015-1910-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumstein DT. 2010. Conservation and animal welfare issues arising from forestry practices. Animal Welfare 19(2):151–157. DOI:10.1017/S0962728600001408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Both C, Visser ME, Verboven N. 1999. Density-dependent recruitment rates in great tits: The importance of being heavier. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266(1418):465–469. DOI:10.1098/rspb.1999.0660.
   Google Scholar
• Briskie JV, Martin PR, Martin TE. 1999. Nest predation and the evolution of nestling begging calls. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266(1434):2153–2159. DOI:10.1098/rspb.1999.0902.
   Google Scholar
• Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. 2005. Acoustic communication in noise. Advances in the Study of Behavior 35:151–209. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-3454(05.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson NV, Pargeter HM, Templeton CN. 2017. Sparrowhawk movement, calling, and presence of dead conspecifics differentially impact blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) vocal and behavioral mobbing responses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 71(9):133. DOI:10.1007/s00265-017-2361-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro T. 2005. Antipredator defences in birds and mammals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coslovsky M, Richner H. 2011. Predation risk affects offspring growth via maternal effects. Functional Ecology 25(4):878–888. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01834.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crane AL, Ferrari MCO. 2017. Patterns of predator neophobia: A meta-analytic review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284(1861):20170583. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2017.0583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creel S, Christianson D. 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(4):194–201. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2007.12.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cucco M, Grenna M, Malacarne G. 2012. Female condition, egg shape and hatchability: A study on the grey partridge. Journal of Zoology 287(3):186–194. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00902.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeming DC. 2018. Effect of composition on shape of bird eggs. Journal of Avian Biology 49(1):jav–01528. DOI:10.1111/jav.01528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon KG, Conway CJ. 2018. Nest predation risk explains variation in avian clutch size. Behavioral Ecology 29(2):301–311. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arx130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudeck BP, Clinchy M, Allen MC, Zanette LY. 2018. Fear affects parental care, which predicts juvenile survival and exacerbates the total cost of fear on demography. Ecology 99(1):127–135. DOI:10.1002/ecy.2050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duursma DE, Gallagher RV, Price JJ, Griffith SC. 2018. Variation in avian egg shape and nest structure is explained by climatic conditions. Scientific Reports 8(1):4141. DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-22436-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eggers S, Griesser M, Nystrand M, Ekman J. 2006. Predation risk induces changes in nest-site selection and clutch size in the Siberian jay. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273(1587):701–706. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2005.3373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekner A, Tryjanowski P. 2008. Do small hole nesting passerines detect cues left by a predator? A test on winter roosting sites. Acta Ornithologica 43(1):107–111. DOI:10.3161/000164508X345392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasiolo M, Nedellec R, Goude Y, Wood SN. 2019. Scalable visualisation methods for modern generalized additive models. arXiv.org, Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.10632. Accessed Mar 2022 15.
   Google Scholar
• Fontaine JJ, Martin TE. 2006. Parent birds assess nest predation risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. Ecology Letters 9(4):428–434. DOI:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00892.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frid A, Dill LM. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6(1):11. Available: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art11.
   Google Scholar
• Giesing ER, Suski CD, Warner RE, Bell AM. 2011. Female sticklebacks transfer information via eggs: Effects of maternal experience with predators on offspring. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278(1712):1753–1759. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2010.1819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillooly J, Charnov E, West G, Savage VM, Brown JH. 2002. Effects of size and temperature on developmental time. Nature 417(6884):70–73. DOI:10.1038/417070a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goławski A, Sytykiewicz H. 2021. How urban and rural birds respond to the colour of bird feeders? Journal of Ornitholofy 162(4):1193–1198. DOI:10.1007/s10336-021-01907-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haapakoski M, Hardenbol AA, Matson KD. 2018. Exposure to chemical cues from predator-exposed conspecifics increases reproduction in a wild rodent. Scientific Reports 8(1):17214. DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-35568-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hua F, Sieving KE, Fletcher Jr RJ, Wright CA. 2014. Increased perception of predation risk to adults and offspring alters avian reproductive strategy and performance. Behavioral Ecology 25(3):509–519. DOI:10.1093/beheco/aru017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutfluss A, Dingemanse N. 2019. Human recreation reduces clutch size in great tits Parus major regardless of risk-taking personality. Behavioral Ecology 30(6):1751–1760. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arz145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janas K, Di Lecce I, Szulkin M, Sudyka J. 2022. Plumage colouration differs between offspring raised in natural cavities and nestboxes. bioRxiv 08:29.505638. DOI: 10.1101/2022.08.29.505638.
   Google Scholar
• Koyama H, Shi D, Fujimori T. 2019. Biophysics in oviduct: Planar cell polarity, cilia, epithelial fold and tube morphogenesis, egg dynamics. Biophysics and Physicobiology 16(1):89–107. DOI:10.2142/biophysico.16.0_89.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krist M. 2011. Egg size and offspring quality: A meta-analysis in birds. Biological Reviews 86(3):692–716. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00166.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshyk R, Nol E, Burke DM, Burness G. 2012. Logging affects fledgling sex ratios and baseline corticosterone in a forest songbird. Plos One 7(3):e33124. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0033124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima SL. 2009. Predators and the breeding bird: Behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 84(3):485–513. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00085.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe A, Rogers AC, Durrant KL. 2014. Effect of human disturbance on long-term habitat use and breeding success of the European Nightjar, Caprimulgus europaeus. Avian Conservation and Ecology 9(2):6. DOI:10.5751/ACE-00690-090206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magrath RD. 1991. Nestling weight and juvenile survival in the blackbird Turdus merula. Journal of Animal Ecology 60(1):335–351. DOI:10.2307/5464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massaro M, Starling-Windhof A, Briskie JV, Martin TE. 2008. Introduced mammalian predators induce behavioural changes in parental care in an endemic New Zealand bird. Plos One 3(6):e2331. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0002331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messina S, Edwards DP, Marasco V, Canoine V, Cosset CCP, Tomassi S, Benedick S, Eens M, Costantini D. 2020. Glucocorticoids link forest type to local abundance in tropical birds. Functional Ecology 34(9):1814–18250. DOI:10.1111/1365-2435.13586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller AP, Kwieciński Z, Tryjanowski P. 2017. Prey reduce risk-taking and abundance in the proximity of predators. Current Zoology 63(6):591–598. DOI:10.1093/cz/zow114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT, Kananoja T, Ylönen H. 2009. Indirect cues of nest predation risk and avian reproductive decisions. Biology Letters 5(2):176–178. DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morosinotto C, Thomson R, Korpimäki E. 2010. Habitat selection as an antipredator behaviour in a multi-predator landscape: All enemies are not equal. Journal of Animal Ecology 79(2):327–333. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01638.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morosinotto C, Thomson RL, Korpimäki E, Mateo R, Ruuskanen S. 2019. Maternal food supplementation and perceived predation risk modify egg composition and eggshell traits but not offspring condition. Journal of Experimental Biology 222(19):jeb201954. DOI:10.1242/jeb.201954.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy MT. 1985. Nestling eastern kingbird growth: Effects of initial size and ambient temperature. Ecology 66(1):162–170. DOI:10.2307/1941316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutzel A, Olsen AL, Mathot KJ, Araya-Ajoy YG, Nicolaus M, Wijmenga JJ, Wright J, Kempenaers B, Dingemanse NJ. 2019. Effects of manipulated levels of predation threat on parental provisioning and nestling begging. Behavioral Ecology 30(4):1123–1135. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arz060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naef-Daenzer B, Widmer F, Nuber M. 2001. Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. Journal of Animal Ecology 70(5):730–738. DOI:10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00533.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton I. 1986. The sparrowhawk. London: Poyser Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Parejo D, Danchin E, Silva N, White JF, Dreiss AN, Avilés JM. 2008. Do great tits rely on inadvertent social information from blue tits? A habitat selection experiment. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62(10):1569–1579. DOI:10.1007/s00265-008-0586-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peacor SD, Barton BT, Kimbro DL, Sih A, Sheriff MJ. 2020. A framework and standardized terminology to facilitate the study of predation-risk effects. Ecology 101(12):e03152. DOI:10.1002/ecy.3152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peluc SI, Sillett TS, Rotenberry JT, Ghalambor CK. 2008. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in an island songbird exposed to a novel predation risk. Behavioral Ecology 19(4):830–835. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arn033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson S, Colwell M. 2014. Experimental evidence that effigies reduce corvid occurrence. Northwestern Naturalist 95(2):103–112. DOI:10.1898/NWN13-18.1.
   Google Scholar
• Possenti CD, Bentz AB, Romano A, Parolini M, Caprioli M, Rubolini D, Navara K, Saino N. 2019. Predation risk affects egg mass but not egg steroid hormone concentrations in yellow-legged gulls. Current Zoology 65(4):401–408. DOI:10.1093/cz/zoy064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Availabe: https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed Mar 2022 15.
   Google Scholar
• Remacha C, Delgado JA, Bulaic M, Pérez-Tris J. 2016. Human disturbance during early life impairs nestling growth in birds inhabiting a nature recreation area. Plos One 11(11):e0166748. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0166748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhymer JM. 1988. The effect of egg size variability on thermoregulation of Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) offspring and its implications for survival. Oecologia 75(1):20–24. DOI:10.1007/BF00378809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santema P, Valcu M, Kempenaers B. 2020. Exposure to predator models during the fertile period leads to higher levels of extra‐pair paternity in blue tits. Journal of Animal Ecology 89(2):647–657. DOI:10.1111/1365-2656.13114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuerlein A, Van’t Hof TJ, Gwinner E. 2001. Predators as stressors? Physiological and reproductive consequences of predation risk in tropical stonechats (Saxicola torquata axillaris). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268(1476):1575–1582. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2001.1691.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. 2012. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9(7):671–675. DOI:10.1038/nmeth.2089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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(7):1622–1633. DOI:10.1890/06-1757.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheriff MJ, Krebs CJ, Boonstra R. 2009. The sensitive hare: Sublethal effects of predator stress on reproduction in snowshoe hares. Journal of Animal Ecology 78(6):1249–1258. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01552.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sievert T, Haapakoski M, Palme R, Voipio H, Ylönen H. 2019. Secondhand horror: Effects of direct and indirect predator cues on behavior and reproduction of the bank vole. Ecosphere 10(6):e02765. DOI:10.1002/ecs2.2765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith H, Bruun M. 1998. The effect of egg size and habitat on starling nestling growth and survival. Oecologia 115(1–2):59–63. DOI:10.1007/s004420050491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sofaer HR, Sillett TS, Peluc SI, Morrison SA, Ghalambor CK. 2013. Differential effects of food availability and nest predation risk on avian reproductive strategies. Behavioral Ecology 24(3):698–707. DOI:10.1093/beheco/ars212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sudyka J, Di Lecce I, Wojas L, Rowiński P, Szulkin M. 2022. Nest-boxes alter the reproductive ecology of urban cavity-nesters in a species-dependent way. Journal of Avian Biology (In Press) 2022(11–12). DOI: 10.1111/jav.03051.
   Google Scholar
• Swift KN, Marzluff JM. 2015. Wild American crows gather around their dead to learn about danger. Animal Behaviour 109(11):187–197. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.08.021.
   Google Scholar
• Swift KN, Marzluff JM. 2018. Occurrence and variability of tactile interactions between wild American crows and dead conspecifics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373(1754):20170259. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2017.0259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szymkowiak J, Thomson RL, Kuczynski L. 2017. Interspecific social information use in habitat selection decisions among migrant songbirds. Behavioral Ecology 28(3):767–775. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arx029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travers M, Clinchy M, Zanette L, Boonstra R, Williams TD. 2010. Indirect predator effects on clutch size and the cost of egg production. Ecology Letters 13(8):980–988. DOI:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01488.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troscianko J. 2014. A simple tool for calculating egg shape, volume and surface area from digital images. Ibis 156(4):874–878. DOI:10.1111/ibi.12177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tryjanowski P, Møller AP, Morelli F, Biaduń W, Brauze T, Ciach M, Czechowski P, Czyż S, Dulisz B, Goławski A, Hetmański T, Indykiewicz P, Mitrus C, Myczko Ł, Nowakowski JJ, Polakowski M, Takacs V, Wysocki D, Zduniak P. 2016. Urbanization affects neophilia and risk-taking at bird-feeders. Scientific Reports 6(1):28575. DOI:10.1038/srep28575.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams TD. 1994. Intraspecific variation in egg size and egg composition in birds: Effects on offspring fitness. Biological Reviews 69(1):35–59. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01485.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SN. 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Zanette LY, White AF, Allen MC, Clinchy M. 2011. Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. Science 334(6061):1398–1401. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41352243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar