Deceptive nest defence in ground-nesting birds and the risk of intermediate strategies

Smith, Paul A.; Edwards, Darryl B.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205236

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the fact that sandpipers use distraction behaviour to divert predators from their nests (i.e. active deception; Gochfeld 1984, Montgomerie and Weatherhead 1988, Smith and Edwards 2018 also suggests that arctic predators are attracted to movements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest attentiveness drives nest predation in arctic sandpipers

Meyer

Bollache

Dechaume-Moncharmont

et al. 2020

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most birds incubate their eggs to allow embryo development. This behaviour limits the ability of adults to perform other activities. Hence, incubating adults trade off incubation and nest protection with foraging to meet their own needs. Parents can either cooperate to sustain this tradeoff or incubate alone. The main cause of reproductive failure at this reproductive stage is predation and adults reduce this risk by keeping the nest location secret. Arctic sandpipers are interesting biological models to investigate parental care evolution as they may use several parental care strategies. The three main incubation strategies include both parents sharing incubation duties ('biparental'), one parent incubating alone ('uniparental'), or a flexible strategy with both uniparental and biparental incubation within a population ('mixed'). By monitoring the incubation behaviour in 714 nests of seven sandpiper species across 12 arctic sites, we studied the relationship between incubation strategy and nest predation. First, we described how the frequency of incubation recesses (NR), their mean duration (MDR), and the daily total duration of recesses (TDR) vary among strategies. Then, we examined how the

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest attentiveness drives nest predation in arctic sandpipers

Meyer

Bollache

Dechaume-Moncharmont

et al. 2020

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nests concealed by vegetation or other microtopography (e.g. hummocks) may be less likely to be located visually by predators, but the resulting obscured visibility for incubating adults may delay their departure when a predator is detected, which may both reduce the subsequent search area for the predator and put the incubating adult at risk of capture, although birds that flush at only short distances from predators are more likely to engage in injury‐feigning or other forms of active deception of the predator (Smith & Edwards 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetation structure influences predation rates of early nests in subarctic breeding waders

Laidlaw

Gunnarsson

Méndez

et al. 2020

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground‐nesting species are vulnerable to a wide range of predators and often experience very high levels of nest predation. Strategies to reduce nest vulnerability can include concealing nests in vegetation and/or nesting in locations in which nests and eggs are camouflaged and less easy for predators to locate. These strategies could have important implications for the distribution of ground‐nesting species and the success rates of nests in areas with differing vegetation structure. However, the factors influencing the success of nest concealment and camouflage strategies in ground‐nesting species are complex. Here we explore the effects of local vegetation structure and extent of nest concealment on nest predation rates in a range of ground‐nesting, sympatric wader species with differing nest concealment strategies (open‐nest species: Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria and Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus; concealed‐nest species: Black‐tailed Godwit Limosa limosa, Redshank Tringa totanus and Snipe Gallinago gallinago) in south Iceland, in landscapes that comprise substantial variability in vegetation structure at a range of scales. We monitored 469 nests of these six wader species in 2015 and 2016 and ~40% of these nests were predated. Nest predation rates were similar for open‐nest and concealed‐nest species and did not vary with vegetation structure in the surrounding landscape, but nest‐concealing species were ~10% more likely to have nests predated when they were poorly concealed, and the frequency of poorly concealed nests was higher in colder conditions at the start of the breeding season. For concealed‐nest species, the reduced capacity to hide nests in colder conditions is likely to reflect low rates of vegetation growth in such conditions. The ongoing trend for warmer springs at subarctic latitudes could result in more rapid vegetation growth, with consequent increases in the success rates of early nests of concealed‐nest species. Temperature‐related effects on nest concealment from predators could thus be an important mechanism through which climate change affecting vegetation could have population‐level impacts on breeding birds at higher latitudes.

show abstract

“…When performing, the closer a parent is to a potential predator, and the more intense its display, the greater the risk compared with other behaviour (Brunton , Lima & Dill ), and so assessing predator proximity will be an important component of any decision to distract. Recently, Smith and Edwards () found that individual White‐rumped Sandpipers Calidris fuscicollis and Red Phalaropes Phalaropus fulicarius that flush from their nests at long distances in response to an approaching threat leave the vicinity of the nest immediately, whereas those that flush from close distances are more likely to engage in injury‐feigning. This latter strategy was associated with reduced risk of nest predation, but long‐distance flushing may be less common due to these birds' concealed nest‐sites (Smith & Edwards ).…”

Section: Trade‐offs and Alternative Tacticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, Smith and Edwards () found that individual White‐rumped Sandpipers Calidris fuscicollis and Red Phalaropes Phalaropus fulicarius that flush from their nests at long distances in response to an approaching threat leave the vicinity of the nest immediately, whereas those that flush from close distances are more likely to engage in injury‐feigning. This latter strategy was associated with reduced risk of nest predation, but long‐distance flushing may be less common due to these birds' concealed nest‐sites (Smith & Edwards ). Certainly, degree of nest concealment can be expected to influence individual variation in flushing distance and the co‐occurrence of additional defensive behaviours.…”

Section: Trade‐offs and Alternative Tacticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian distraction displays: a review

Humphreys

Ruxton

2020

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distraction displays are conspicuous behaviours functioning to distract a predator's attention away from the displayer's nest or young, thereby reducing the chance of offspring being discovered and predated. Distraction is one of the riskier parental care tactics, as its success derives from the displaying parent becoming the focus of a predator's attention. Such displays are prominent in birds, primarily shorebirds, but the last comprehensive review of distraction was in 1984. Our review aims to provide an updated synthesis of what is known about distraction displays in birds, and to open up new areas of study by highlighting some of the key avenues to explore and the broadened ecological perspectives that could be adopted in future research. We begin by drawing attention to the flexibility of form that distraction displays can take and providing an overview of the different avian taxa known to use anti‐predator distraction displays, also examining species‐specific sex differences in use. We then explore the adaptive value and evolution of distraction displays, before considering the variation seen in the timing of their use over a reproductive cycle. An evaluation of the efficacy of distraction compared with alternative anti‐predator tactics is then conducted via a cost–benefit analysis. Distraction displays are also found in a handful of non‐avian taxa, and we briefly consider these unusual cases. We conclude by postulating why distraction is primarily an avian behaviour and set out our suggestions for future research into the evolution and ecology of avian distraction displays.

show abstract

Deceptive nest defence in ground-nesting birds and the risk of intermediate strategies

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

Nest attentiveness drives nest predation in arctic sandpipers

Nest attentiveness drives nest predation in arctic sandpipers

Vegetation structure influences predation rates of early nests in subarctic breeding waders

Avian distraction displays: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About