Information collected during the post-breeding season guides future breeding decisions in a migratory bird

Abstract

Breeding habitat choice and investment decisions are key contributors to fitness in animals. Density of individuals is a well-known cue of habitat quality used for future breeding decisions, but accuracy of density cues decreases as individuals disperse from breeding sites. Used nests remain an available information source also after breeding season, but whether such information is used for breeding decisions is less well known. We experimentally investigated whether migratory, cavitynesting pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) prospect potential breeding sites after breeding season and use old nests as a cue for future breeding decisions. In late summer 2013, forest sites were assigned to four treatments: (1) sites including nest boxes with old nests of heterospecifics (tits), (2) sites including suitable but empty nest boxes, (3) sites with unsuitable nest boxes, or (4) sites without any nest boxes. In the following year, we investigated pied flycatcher habitat choice and reproductive investment according to these "past" cues while also controlling for additional information sources present during settlement. Flycatchers preferred sites where tits had been perceived to breed in the previous year, but only if great tits were also currently breeding in the site and had a relatively high number of eggs. Old flycatchers avoided sites previously treated with suitable but empty cavities, whereas young flycatchers preferred sites where tits had apparently bred in the previous year. Also egg mass, but not clutch size or clutch mass, was affected by the combination of past treatment information and current tit abundance.

High frequency of prospecting for informed dispersal and colonisation in a social species at large spatial scale

“…Prospecting in non-breeding birds has particular features compared to that performed by breeders. The former does not have energetic and spatial constraints imposed by reproduction, they have limited personal information (they have never bred before), and it seems that they mostly prospect late in the breeding season when public information on breeding success of conspecifics in different patches is available (Boulinier et al 1996;Ward 2005;Greenville et al 2016;Sherer 2019;Brandl et al 2019;Tolvanen et al 2020).…”

Conspecific and heterospecific cueing in shelter choices of Blaptica dubia cockroaches

“…Furthermore, it was clear from the third experiment that individuals’ shelter choice behavior was influenced by chemical cues of another species. Although not as widely documented as conspecific cueing, heterospecific cueing can be an important factor in shelter or habitat choice in animals (rodents: Cassaing et al, 2013 ; snakes: Waye & Gregory, 1993 ; birds: Tolvanen et al, 2020 ). Even slight attraction to heterospecific cues can lead to important mixed-species grouping dynamics, as seen in terrestrial isopods, Porcellio scaber and Oniscus asellus ( Broly et al, 2016 ) and in bombardier beetles of genus Brachinus ( Schaller et al, 2018 ).…”

Species diversity and interspecific information flow

“…Although in our review we focus on species diversity, there can also be within‐species variation, such as related to sex, age, or personality differences (Dall et al ., 2012), which may also affect the production of cues and signals, or the use of information from heterospecifics (e.g. Morinay et al ., 2020 b ; Tolvanen et al ., 2020).…”