The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non‐colonial, hole‐nesting species, the collared flycatcher

Abstract

Summary1. Breeding habitat quality strongly aects ®tness. Therefore, individuals are likely to select their breeding habitat after gathering information on quality of potential breeding patches. In the study reported in this paper, we investigated whether local reproductive success of conspeci®cs in a patch (patch reproductive success, PRS) could be used to assess habitat quality and make dispersal decisions in a non colonial, hole-nesting, passerine bird, the collared¯ycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). 2. Assumptions for such a breeding habitat selection mechanism were met: the habitat patches were of dierent quality, as measured by PRS, with relative quality varying between years, and PRS was autocorrelated in time.3. As in many other species, breeding dispersal was related in both sexes to individual reproductive success before dispersal: unsuccessful individuals were more likely to disperse than successful ones. 4. Additively, PRS in¯uenced both breeding and natal dispersal. This eect depended on sex. Dispersal was negatively related to PRS in females, and positively in males with low competitive ability (juvenile and unsuccessful adult males). 5. Breeding dispersal was positively related to¯ycatcher density in males, but negatively in females. Moreover, when included in the analyses, laying date of the previous breeding attempt (which should be correlated with competitive ability) replaced the eect of PRS in adult males. 6. The observed patterns can be explained by PRS (or another variable correlated with PRS) being used to assess dierent components of habitat quality in each sex, in relation to intraspeci®c competition pressure. We suggest that males of low competitive ability may either use PRS to assess the level of expected intraspeci®c competition the following year, and choose to disperse from high PRS woodlands, or be forced to disperse when PRS is high because of strong competition. Females might use PRS to assess the expected reproductive output if breeding in the patch the following year.Key-words: conspeci®c cues, dispersal, habitat quality, environment predictability, spatial scale. (1999) Journal of Animal Ecology

Significance of the Breeding Season for Autumnal Nest-Site Selection by Tree SparrowsPasser montanus

“…Tree Sparrows clearly select nests that hatched nestlings, no matter whether they are successful or not, and avoid nests deserted during their construction, egg laying, or incubation, (mostly due to human interference -see Pinowski et al 1973). This is in agreement with other studies that indicate that for adults the experience from the breeding season is a basic cue for selection of a suitable nest site in autumn (Doligez et al 1999). Only 16% of Tree Sparrows during the period of spring courtship selected the same nest-boxes as in the period of autumnal display, because of: 1 st : winter mortality is very high (ca.…”

“…Doligez et al 1999, Reed et al 1999, Danchin et al 2001, we classified Tree Sparrows nests from the immediately previous breeding season according to the most advanced stage of development, regardless of brood timing. Thus, any nesting attempt with unhatched eggs or dead nestlings was disregarded if a subsequent attempt in the same box was successful in the same season.…”

Gathering public information for habitat selection: prospecting birds cue on parental activity

“…Therefore, parental activity around a nest is a good predictor of the reproductive success at fledging at that specific breeding site in the current year. Because reproductive success is locally temporally autocorrelated (Doligez et al 1999), parental activity should also predict success at this site in the next year.…”

Influence of food availability on demography and local population dynamics in a long-lived seabird

“…Although some other factors can also be involved in emigration, there is extensive evidence that breeding failure can have an important influence (e.g. Danchin et al 1998;Doligez et al 1999;. 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 Results showed that age also influenced emigration to other local populations .…”