Elsevier

Animal Behaviour

Volume 67, Issue 5, May 2004, Pages 933-939
Animal Behaviour

Nepotistic alarm calling in the Siberian jay, Perisoreus infaustus

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.09.005Get rights and content

Abstract

From a life history perspective, parents have an incentive to protect their reproductive investment, and so may provide care even after their offspring are independent. Such prolonged parental care could lead to postponed dispersal of the offspring and thereby facilitate the formation of kin groups. We tested whether alpha birds in Siberian jays protected their independent, retained offspring by giving alarm calls during simulated predator attacks. We compared the responses to predator attacks simulated by flying a hawk model over a dyad of birds on a feeder for dyads composed of an alpha bird and either a relative or a nonrelative. Alpha females were nepotistic in their alarm-calling behaviour, in that they called more frequently when accompanied by their retained offspring than by unrelated immigrants, but alpha males called indiscriminately. This difference in alarm calling could reflect dominance relationships in Siberian jay groups, because the presence of immigrants may be less costly to alpha males, but alpha females are more vulnerable to competition from immigrants. Alarm calls were usually given during escape, when both individuals in the dyad had left the feeding site. However, results of a playback experiment suggest that alarm calls conveyed information about danger and incited an immediate escape reaction. Our results indicate that alarm calling can be nepotistic, and that factors other than kinship influence alarm-calling behaviour. Nepotistic antipredator behaviours are benefits that offspring can gain only in their natal territory. Hence, in the absence of preferential treatment by their parents, offspring may be more likely to disperse and kin groups are prevented from forming.

Section snippets

Study site and species

We studied Siberian jays in continuous taiga habitat outside Arvidsjaur, northern Sweden (65°40′N, 19°0′E; N=28 groups). Birds were marked with a numbered metal ring and colour rings for individual recognition. Blood samples (100 μl of blood collected from the alar vein) were taken from all individuals for sex determination using the P2/P8 method (Griffiths et al. 1998). The age of first-year birds that had not been ringed as nestlings could be reliably determined from the shape of the outermost

Nepotistic alarm calling

The birds called in 34 of 40 trials, and both birds in the dyad called in six of these 34. Our analysis considers only the first call, because subsequent calls could be a response to the first. Alpha birds were significantly more likely to give the first call (79%; binomial test: P=0.003; Table 1). There was an asymmetry not only in that alpha birds were more likely to call first, but also in that calling was nepotistic (logistic regression: P<0.0001; Table 2). However, only alpha females were

Fitness consequences of alarm calling

The response of Siberian jay alpha females to the simulated hawk attacks demonstrates that there is a nepotistic component to alarm calling. Alarm calling, however, is only a proximate behavioural mechanism by which individuals can enhance predator protection for kin (Hamilton, 1964, Sherman, 1977, Sherman, 1985). The full evolutionary consequences require that survival costs to callers and survival benefits to individuals being alerted are ultimately assessed (Hauber & Sherman 1998). A

Acknowledgements

We thank Tim Birkhead, Janis Dickinson, Jacob Höglund, Walt Koenig, Hanna Kokko, Raoul Mulder, Lisa Shorey Staffan Ulfstrand, and Johan Wallin for valuable comments that improved the manuscript, Claire Spottiswoode for improving the English and Vittorio Baglione for stimulating and critical comments throughout the study. Gunnar and Ingrid Perssson generously gave us access to the facilities of ‘Lappugglan’ to set up our field base in Arvidsjaur. In the field we received the much appreciated

References (49)

  • I. Vine

    Risk of visual detection and pursuit by a predator and the selective advantage of flocking behaviour

    Journal of Theoretical Biology

    (1971)
  • R.V. Alatalo et al.

    Alarm calling by individual willow tits, Parus montanus

    Animal Behaviour

    (1991)
  • K.E. Arnold et al.

    Cooperative breeding in birds: a comparative test of the life history hypothesis

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B

    (1998)
  • D.T. Blumstein et al.

    Why do yellow-bellied marmots call?

    Animal Behaviour

    (1998)
  • J.L. Brown

    Helping and Communal Breeding in Birds

    (1987)
  • E.L. Charnov et al.

    The evolution of alarm calls: altruism or manipulation

    American Naturalist

    (1975)
  • D. Cheney et al.

    Vervet monkeys, Cercopithecus aethiopis, alarm calls: manipulation through shared information?

    Behaviour

    (1985)
  • D. Cheney et al.

    How Monkeys see the World

    (1990)
  • T. Clutton-Brock

    Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates

    Science

    (2002)
  • R. Dawkins

    The Selfish Gene

    (1976)
  • J. Ekman

    Coherence, composition and territories of winter social groups of the willow tit, Parus montanus, and the crested tit, Parus cristatus

    Ornis Scandinavica

    (1979)
  • J. Ekman et al.

    Why offspring delay dispersal: experimental evidence for a role of parental tolerance

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B

    (2002)
  • J. Ekman et al.

    Offspring retention in the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus): the prolonged brood care hypothesis

    Behavioral Ecology

    (1994)
  • J. Ekman et al.

    Parental nepotism enhances survival of retained offspring in the Siberian jay

    Behavioral Ecology

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    J. Ekman is at the Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden.

    View full text