Abstract
Red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio) show a substantial variability in their nest defence behaviour, which usually follows the rules of optimal parental behaviour, vigorously attacking egg and chick predators and only passively guarding against harmless animals. Nevertheless, shrikes hesitate to attack the Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), which specializes in plundering passerine nests. Our previous studies have suggested that this behaviour may be the result of an alternative defence strategy, relying on nest crypsis. To test this hypothesis, at the shrike nests, we presented a magpie dummy associated with playbacks drawing the predators’ attention to the presence of the nest. We predicted that the presentation of a magpie dummy associated with shrike alarm calls moves the parents to action, causing them to chase the magpie away from the nest. We showed that the presence of a magpie dummy associated with shrike alarm calls elicits a significantly more active response in shrike parents compared to a magpie dummy associated with neutral song. Parents actively moved around the dummy and produced alarm calls; nevertheless, most of the tested pairs hesitated to attack the dummy. We may conclude that the low nest defence activity of shrike parents towards magpie dummy was partly the result of an alternative strategy, which may be cancelled out by alerting the predator to the location of the nest; nevertheless, shrikes seem to be afraid of the magpie and hesitate to attack it physically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Original data are provided in the Supplement (Supplemental Material Table S1).
References
Andersson M, Wiklund CG, Rundgren H (1980) Parental defence of offspring: a model and an example. Anim Behav 28:536–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80062-5
Antczak M, Goławski A, Kuźniak S, Tryjanowski P (2009) Costly replacement: how do different stages of nest failure affect clutch replacement in the redbacked shrikes Lanius collurio? Ethol Ecol Evol 21:127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2009.9522501
AOPK ČR (2020) Nature conservation finding database. Online: https://portal.nature.cz/nd
Armstrong EA (1952) The distraction displays of the Little Ringed Plover and territorial competition with the Ringed Plover. Brit Birds 45:55–59
Armstrong EA (1956) Distraction display and the human predator. Ibis 98:641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1956.tb01454.x
Baker MC, Becker AM (2002) Mobbing calls of black-capped chickadees: effects of urgency on call production. Wilson Bull 114:510–516. https://doi.org/10.1676/0043-5643(2002)114[0510:MCOBCC]2.0.CO;2
Bartmess-LeVasseur J, Branch CL, Browning SA, Owens JL, Freeberg TM (2010) Predator stimuli and calling behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1187–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0935-y
Brunton DH (1986) Fatal antipredator behavior of a Killdeer. Wilson Bull 98:605–607
Bureš S, Pavel V (2003) Do birds behave in order to avoid disclosing their nest site? Bird Study 50:73–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650309461293
Burhans DE (2000) Avoiding the nest: responses of field sparrows to the threat of nest predation. Auk 117:803–806. https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2000)117[0803:ATNROF]2.0.CO;2
Byrkjedal I (1987) Antipredator behavior and breeding success in Greater Golden-Plover and Eurasian Dotterel. Condor 89:40–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368758
Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Clayton NS, Krebs JR (1995) Memory in food-storing birds: from behaviour to brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol 5:149–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4388(95)80020-4
Crowder LB, Squires DD, Rice JA (1997) Non-additive effects of terrestrial and aquatic predators on juvenile estuarine fish. Ecology 78:1796–1804. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1796:NEOTAA]2.0.CO;2
Curio E, Klump G, Regelmann K (1983) An antipredator response in the great tit (Parus major): is it tuned to predation risk? Oecologia 60:83–88
Dale S, Gustavsen R, Slagsvold T (1996) Risk taking during parental care: a test of three hypotheses applied to the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050264
del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Christie DA (2009) Handbook of the Birds of the World, Volume 14: Bush-shrikes to Old World Sparrows. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona
Drachmann J, Broberg MM, Søgaard P (2002) Nest predation and semicolonial breeding in Linnets Carduelis cannabina. Bird Study 49:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650209461242
Ferguson KI, Stiling P (1996) Non-additive effects of multiple natural enemies on aphid populations. Oecologia 108:375–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00334664
Firth JA, Cole EF, Ioannou CC, Quinn JL, Aplin LM, Culina A, Sheldon BC (2018) Personality shapes pair bonding in a wild bird social system. Nat Ecol Evol 2:1696–1699. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0670-8
Freeberg TM, Krama T, Vrublevska J, Krams I, Kullberg C (2014) Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) calling and risk-sensitive foraging in the face of threat. Anim Cogn 17:1341–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0770-z
Fuchs R, Veselý P, Nácarová J (2019) Predator recognition in birds: the use of key features. In: Springer Briefs in Animal Sciences, Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12404-5(ISBN:978-3-030-12402-1)
Goławski A (2007) Does the Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio L.) benefits from nesting in the association with the Barred Warbler (Sylvia nisoria Bechst.)? Pol J Ecol 55:601–604
Goławski A, Mitrus C (2008) What is more important: Nest-site concealment or aggressive behaviour? A case study of the red-backed shrike, Lanius collurio. Folia Zool 57:403–410
Gómez-Serrano MA, López-López P (2017) Deceiving predators: linking distraction behavior with nest survival in a ground-nesting bird. Behav Ecol 28:260–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw157
Greig-Smith PW (1980) Parental investment in nest defence by stonechats (Saxicola torquata). Anim Behav 28:604–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3472(80)80069-8
Groenewoud F, Kingma SA, Bebbington K, Richardson DS, Komdeur J (2019) Experimentally induced antipredator responses are mediated by social and environmental factors. Behav Ecol 30:986–992. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz039
Harvey PH, Greenwood PJ (1978) Anti-predator defence strategies: some evolutionary problems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 129–151
Holyoak D (1968) A comparative study of the food of some British Corvidae. Bird Study 15:147–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063656809476194
Hora J, Čihák K, Kučera Z (2015) Monitoring druhů přílohy I směrnice o ptácích a ptačích oblastí v letech 2008–2010. Příroda 33:5–489
Hudec K (1983) Fauna ČSSR Ptáci 3. Academia Praha, 1234 pp.
Hurd LE, Eisenberg RM (1990) Arthropod community responses to manipulation of a bitrophic predator guild. Ecology 71:2107–2114. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938624
Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Magrath RD, Oteyza JC, Chalfoun AD, Haff TM, Schmidt KA, Thomson RL, Martin TE (2015) Nest predation research: recent findings and future perspectives. J Ornithol 156:S247–S262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-015-1207-4
Kelley JL, Magurran AE (2003) Learned predator recognition and antipredator responses in fishes. Fish Fish 4:216–226. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2003.00126.x
Kleindorfer S, Hoi H, Fessl B (1996) Alarm calls and chick reactions in the moustached warbler, Acrocephalus melanopogon. Anim Behav 51:1199–1206. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0125
Kleindorfer S, Fessl B, Hoi H (2005) Avian nest defence behaviour: assessment in relation to predator distance and type, and nest height. Anim Behav 69:307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.06.003
Klvaňová A, Horáková D, Exnerová A (2011) Nest defence intensity in House Sparrows Passer domesticus in relation to parental quality and brood value. Acta Ornithol 46:47–54. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164511X589910
Kontiainen P, Pietiäinen H, Huttunen K, Karell P, Kolunen H, Brommer JE (2009) Aggressive ural owl mothers recruit more offspring. Behav Ecol 20:789–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp062
Krama T, Krams I (2004) Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 16:37–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh116
Krams I (2001) Communication in crested tits and the risk of predation. Anim Behav 61:1065–1068. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1702
Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2007) Long-lasting mobbing of the pied flycatcher increases the risk of nest predation. Behav Ecol 18:1082–1084. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm079
Krebs CJ, Boutin S, Boonstra R, Sinclair ARE, Smith JNM, Dale MRT, Martin K, Turkington R (1995) Impact of food and predation on the snowshoe hare cycle. Science 269:1112–1115. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5227.1112
Krištín A (1988) Nahrungsansprüche der Nestlinge Pica pica L. und Passer montanus L. in der Windbrechern der Schuttinsel. Folia Zool 37:343–356
Kryštofková M, Haas M, Exnerová A (2011) Nest defense in blackbirds Turdus merula: effect of predator distance and parental sex. Acta Ornithologica 46:55–63. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164511x589938
Kuźniak S, Bednorz J, Tryjanowski P (2001) Spatial and temporal relations between the Barred Warbler Sylvia nisoria and the Red–backed Shrike Lanius collurio in the Wielkopolska region (W Poland). Acta Ornithol 36:129–133. https://doi.org/10.3161/068.036.0205
Leavesley AJ, Magrath RD (2005) Communicating about danger: urgency alarm calling in a bird. Anim Behav 70:365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.10.017
Lefranc N, Worfolk T (1997) Shrikes: a guide to the shrikes of the world. Pica Press
Leniowski K, Wegrzyn E (2018) Synchronisation of parental behaviours reduces the risk ofnest predation in a socially monogamous passerine bird. Sci Rep 8:7385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25746-5
Listøen C, Karlsen RF, Slagsvold T (2000) Risk taking during parental care: a test of the harm-to-offspring hypothesis. Behav Ecol 11:40–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.1.40
Martin TE (1992) Interaction of nest predation and food limitation in reproductive strategies. Curr Ornithol 9:163–197
Martin TH, Wright RA, Crowder LB (1989) Non-additive impact of blue crabs and spot on their prey assemblages. Ecology 70:1935–1942. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938123
Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187
Němec M, Fuchs R (2014) Nest defense of the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio against five corvid species. Acta Ethol 17:149–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-013-0175-z
Olendorf R, Robinson SK (2000) Effectiveness of nest defence in the Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens. Ibis 142:365–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2000.tb04432.x
Patterson TL, Petrinovich L, James DK (1980) Reproductive value and appropriateness of response to predators by white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:227–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299368
Polak M (2013) Comparison of nest defence behaviour between two associate passerines. J Ethol 31:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-012-0340-2
Polak M (2014) Protective nesting association between the Barred Warbler Sylvia nisoria and the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio: an experiment using artificial and natural nests. Ecol Res 29:949–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-014-1183-9
Polak M (2016) Comparative breeding ecology, nest survival, and agonistic behaviour between the Barred Warbler and the Red-backed Shrike. J Ornithol 157:747–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1336-4
Pollok B, Prior H, Güntürkün O (2000) Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica). J Comp Psychol 114:148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.114.2.148
R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 1st April 2020
Redondo T (1989) Avian nest defence: theoretical models and evidence. Behaviour 111:161–195. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853989X00646
Redondo T, Carranza J (1989) Offspring reproductive value and the nest defense in the magpie (Pica pica). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302995
Roos S, Pärt T (2004) Nest predators affect spatial dynamics of breeding red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio). J Anim Ecol 73:117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00786.x
Rosenheim JA, Wilhoit LR, Armer CA (1993) Influence of intraguild predation among generalist insect predators on the suppression of an herbivore population. Oecologia 96:439–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317517
Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01437-2
Simmons KEL (1951) Distraction-display in the Kentish Plover. Brit Birds 44:181–187
Sordahl TA (1990) The risks of avian mobbing and distraction behavior: an anecdotal review. Wilson Bull 102:349–352
Spiller DA, Schoener TW (1994) Effects of top and intermediate predators in a terrestrial food web. Ecology 75:182–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939393
Strnad M, Němec M, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2012) Red-backed Shrikes (Lanius collurio) adjust the mobbing intensity, but not mobbing frequency, by assessing the potential threat to themselves from different predators. Ornis Fenn 89:206–215
Strnadová I, Němec M, Strnad M, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2018) The nest defence by the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio)—support for the vulnerability hypothesis. J Avian Biol 49:e01726. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01726
Syrová M, Němec M, Veselý P, Landová E, Fuchs R (2016) Facing a clever predator demands clever responses—red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio) vs. Eurasian Magpies (Pica pica). PLoS ONE 11:e0159432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159432
Tryjanowski P, Goławski A (2004) Sex differences in nest defence by the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio: effects of offspring age, brood size and stage of breeding season. J Ethol 22:13–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-003-0096-9
Tryjanowski P, Goławski A, Kuźniak S, Mokwa T, Antczak M (2007) Disperse or stay? Exceptionally high breeding-site infidelity in the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio. Ardea 95:316–320. https://doi.org/10.5253/078.095.0214
Tryjanowski P, Morelli F, Kwieciński Z, Indykiewicz P, Møller AP (2018) Birds respond similarly to taxidermic models and live cuckoos Cuculus canorus. J Ethol 36:243–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-018-0554-z
Wheelwright NT, Dorsey FB (1991) Short-term and long-term consequences of predator avoidance by Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Auk 108:719–723. https://doi.org/10.2307/4088118
Zinkivskay A, Nazir F, Smulders TV (2009) What–Where–When memory in magpies (Pica pica). Anim Cogn 12:119–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0176-x (PMID: 18670793)
Zucca P, Milos N, Vallortigara G (2007) Piagetian object permanence and its development in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius). Anim Cogn 10:243–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0063-2
Acknowledgements
We thank Christopher Mark Steer for his proof reading and helpful comments on the manuscript. We also thank the Hradiště Military Training Area Regional Office for allowing us to conduct experiments within their training area.
Funding
This study was supported by University of South Bohemia (048/2019/P).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PV participated on the design of experiments, conducted the data analyses and wrote most of the manuscript. MS participated on the design of experiments, participated on the data collection and manuscript preparation. MV participated on data collection and analyses, and manuscript preparation, JH and JN participated on the data collection and preparation of the manuscript. RF participated on the design of experiments. All authors have read the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Authors declare no conflicts of interests.
Ethics approval
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Permission for studies on wild red-backed shrikes was granted by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic (13842/2011-30), the license permitting experimentation with animals no. CZ01629 was offered by the Ministry of the Agriculture of the Czech Republic. This research adhered to the ASAB/ABS guidelines for the use of animals in research. Authors declare that the experiments comply with the current laws of the Czech Republic (and European union).
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Veselý, P., Syrová, M., Voháňková, M. et al. Cowards or clever guys: an alternative nest defence strategy employed by shrikes against magpies. Anim Cogn 25, 307–317 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01552-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01552-x