Flycatchers Copy Conspecifics in Nest-Site Selection but Neither Personal Experience nor Frequency of Tutors Have an Effect

Abstract

Using the behavior of others in guiding one's own behavior is a common strategy in animals. The prevailing theory predicts that young age and the inexperience of an individual are expected to increase the probability of adopting the behaviors of others. Also, the most common behavior in the population should be copied. Here, we tested the above predictions by examining social information use in the selection of nest-site features with a field experiment using a wild cavity nesting bird, the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). We used an experimental design in which geometric symbols depict nest-site features. By manipulating the apparent symbol choices of early settled individuals and monitoring the choices of later arriving birds, we can study social information use without bias from learned or innate preferences. Flycatchers were found to use social information in the selection of nest-site features, with about 60% of the population preferring the manipulated conspecific choices. However, age and experience as explanatory factors suggested by the social information use theory did not explain the choices. The present result, in concert with earlier similar experiments, implies that flycatchers may in some situations rely more on interspecific information in the selection of nest-site characteristics.

Heterospecific Nest Site Copying Behavior in a Wild Bird: Assessing the Influence of Genetics and Past Experience on a Joint Breeding Phenotype

“…Males may have a preponderant influence on nest site selection, as illustrated by the absence of effect from female age and dispersal status on the joint nest site selection phenotype (Jaakkonen et al, 2013). The low female contribution to the joint phenotype observed here contrasts with another recent experimental study in the pied flycatcher, where only females used tit phenology as a source of social information for breeding site selection (Samplonius and Both, 2017).…”

“…Flycatchers have been found to use conspecific cues from the previous year (presence and/or reproductive success) for departure (Doligez et al, 1999(Doligez et al, , 2002 and settlement decisions both at large (Alatalo et al, 1982;Doligez et al, 2002Doligez et al, , 2004a and small spatial scales (Jaakkonen et al, 2013;Kivelä et al, 2014). In addition, flycatchers are migratory and arrive on the breeding grounds from late April to late May, when most tits have already started laying or incubating.…”

“…Experiments have also shown that flycatchers copy the (apparent) nest site preference of their main heterospecific competitors, great tits Parus major and blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus Seppänen et al, 2011). Nevertheless, these studies also report high among-individual variability in the use of social information (Jaakkonen et al, 2013). The use of different sources of social information in the collared flycatcher and its among-individual variation previously described thus make this species a highly suitable model to assess the repeatability, heritability, and the importance of personal experience in breeding habitat selection decisions based on social information.…”

“…Over 5 years, we experimentally provided individuals with a source of social information independent from actual site quality using an artificial nest site feature design previously successfully used in this system Seppänen et al, 2011;Jaakkonen et al, 2013Jaakkonen et al, , 2015Forsman et al, 2014). Using a quantitative genetic approach , we simultaneously explored the relative contribution of female and male (i) overall experience (age, familiarity with the environment, previous experience with the experimental design, and previous breeding success) and (ii) direct and indirect additive genetic effects on the joint decision to use the manipulated information source for nest site choice.…”

Causes and Consequences of Intraspecific Variation in Nesting Behaviors: Insights from Blue Tits and Great Tits

“…However, more recent evidence suggests that whilst neighboring birds can adversely affect focal individuals in the ways outlined above, neighboring conspecifics and heterospecifics can also provide significant benefits by providing information about breeding habitat quality (Giraldeau et al, 2002;Pärt and Doligez, 2003;Danchin et al, 2004;Dall et al, 2005;Galef and Laland, 2005;, opportunities for extra pair copulations with higher quality birds (Kempenaers et al, 1992) and cooperating in anti-predator defense behaviors (GrabowskaZhang et al, 2012). Consequently, there is evidence that birds select nest sites in close proximity to conspecifics (Boulinier et al, 1996;Valone, 1996;Boulinier and Danchin, 1997;Pärt and Doligez, 2003;Stamps and Krishman, 2005;Pärt et al, 2011;Jaakkonen et al, 2013) and heterospecifics (Parejo et al, 2005; and gain fitness benefits by doing so (Beletsky and Orians, 1989;Betts et al, 2008; reviewed by Valone and Templeton, 2002;Valone, 2007).…”