Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Zoology
Volume 2011, Article ID 670548, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/670548
Research Article

Leadership of Winter Mixed-Species Flocks by Tufted Titmice (Baeolophus bicolor): Are Titmice Passive Nuclear Species?

1Biology Department, Washington and Jefferson College, 60 S. Lincoln Street, Washington, PA 15301, USA
2Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0430, USA

Received 30 December 2010; Revised 25 March 2011; Accepted 31 May 2011

Academic Editor: Alan Afton

Copyright © 2011 Thomas A. Contreras and Kathryn E. Sieving. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. R. Greenberg, “Birds of many feathers: the formation and structure of mixed-species flocks of forest birds,” in On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups, S. Boinski and P. Garber, Eds., pp. 521–558, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  2. M. Moynihan, “The organization and probable evolution of some mixed species flocks of neotropical birds,” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, vol. 143, pp. 1–140, 1962. View at Google Scholar
  3. D. H. Morse, “Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds,” Ecological Monographs, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 119–168, 1970. View at Google Scholar
  4. E. A. Farley, K. E. Sieving, and T. A. Contreras, “Characterizing complex mixed-species bird flocks using an objective method for determining species participation,” Journal of Ornithology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 451–468, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. F. Vuilleumier, “Mixed species flocks in Patagonian forests, with remarks on interspecies flock formation,” The Condor, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 400–404, 1967. View at Google Scholar
  6. W. H. Buskirk, G. V. N. Powell, J. F. Wittenberger, R. E. Buskirk, and T. U. Powell, “Interspecific bird flocks in tropical highland Panama,” The Auk, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 612–624, 1972. View at Google Scholar
  7. A. S. Dolby and T. C. Grubb Jr., “Benefits to satellite members in mixed-species foraging groups: an experimental analysis,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 501–509, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. A. S. Dolby and T. C. Grubb Jr., “Social context affects risk taking by a satellite species in a mixed-species foraging group,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 110–114, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. K. E. Sieving, T. A. Contreras, and K. L. Maute, “Heterospecific facilitation of forest-boundary crossing by mobbing understory birds in north-central Florida,” The Auk, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 738–751, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. H. Sridhar, G. Beauchamp, and K. Shanker, “Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 337–347, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. Bartmess-LeVasseur, C. L. Branch, S. A. Browning, J. L. Owens, and T. M. Freeberg, “Predator stimuli and calling behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis),” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1187–1198, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. U. Srinivasan, R. H. Raza, and S. Quader, “The nuclear question: rethinking species importance in multi-species animal groups,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 948–954, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  13. A. S. Dolby and T. C. Grubb Jr., “Functional roles in mixed-species foraging flocks: a field manipulation,” The Auk, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 557–559, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. S. Harrap and D. Quinn, Chickadees, Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1995.
  15. E. Goodale and G. Beauchamp, “The relationship between leadership and gregariousness in mixed-species bird flocks,” Journal of Avian Biology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 99–103, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. K. Gaddis, “Mixed flocks, accipiters, and antipredator behavior,” The Condor, vol. 82, pp. 348–349, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  17. P. K. Gaddis, “Composition and behavior of mixed-species flocks of forest birds in north-central Florida,” Florida Field Naturalist, vol. 11, pp. 25–44, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  18. S. L. Lima, “Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North American birds,” The Wilson Bulletin, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 1–47, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  19. K. E. Sieving, S. A. Hetrick, and M. L. Avery, “The versatility of graded acoustic measures in classification of predation threats by the tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor: exploring a mixed framework for threat communication,” Oikos, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 264–276, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. G. M. Langham, T. A. Contreras, and K. E. Sieving, “Why pishing works: Titmouse (Paridae) scolds elicit a generalized response in bird communities,” Ecoscience, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 485–496, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. C. N. Templeton, E. Greene, and K. Davis, “Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size,” Science, vol. 308, no. 5730, pp. 1934–1937, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. C. N. Templeton and E. Greene, “Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 13, pp. 5479–5482, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. R. Lucas and T. M. Freeberg, “Information and the chick-a-dee call: communicating with a complex vocal system,” in The Ecology and Behavior of Chickadees and Titmice: An Integrated Approach, K. A. Otter, Ed., pp. 199–213, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  24. M. Mönkkönen and J. T. Forsman, “Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review,” Ornithological Science, vol. 1, pp. 41–51, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  25. J. T. Forsman, R. L. Thomson, and J.-T. Seppänen, “Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 888–894, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. S. A. Hetrick and K. E. Sieving, “Situationally specific alarm calls of tufted titmouse and interspecific transfer of encoded threat information,” Behavioral Ecology. In press.
  27. E. G. Leigh Jr., “The evolution of mutualism,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2507–2528, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. W. Schwartz and J. D. Hoeksema, “Specialization and resource trade: biological markets as a model of mutualisms,” Ecology, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 1029–1038, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. D. A. Cimprich and T. C. Grubb Jr., “Consequences for Carolina chickadees of foraging with tufted titmice in winter,” Ecology, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 1615–1625, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. D. H. Boucher, The Biology of Mutualism, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1985.
  31. T. Hino, “Mutualistic and commensal organization of avian mixed-species foraging flocks in a forest of western Madagascar,” Journal of Avian Biology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. T. C. Grubb Jr. and V. V. Pravasudov, “Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor),” in The Birds of North America Online, A. Poole, Ed., Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  33. R. L. Smith and T. M. Smith, Ecology and Field Biology, Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000.
  34. A. Rodríguez, H. Andrén, and G. Jansson, “Habitat-mediated predation risk and decision making of small birds at forest edges,” Oikos, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 383–396, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. J. H. Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 4th edition, 1999.
  36. N. I. Fisher, Statistical Analysis of Circular Data, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1993.
  37. S. Nakagawa and I. C. Cuthill, “Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists,” Biological Reviews, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 591–605, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. D. P. Tubelis, A. Cowling, and C. Donnelly, “Role of mixed-species flocks in the use of adjacent savannas by forest birds in the central Cerrado, Brazil,” Austral Ecology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 38–45, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. C. R. Hurd, “Interspecific attraction to the mobbing calls of black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus),” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 287–292, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. K. A. Otter, Ed., The Ecology and Behavior of Chickadees and Titmice: An Integrated Approach, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  41. E. O. Willis and Y. Oniki, “Birds and army ants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 9, pp. 243–263, 1978. View at Google Scholar
  42. C. A. Munn and J. W. Terborgh, “Multi-species territoriality in neotropical foraging flocks,” The Condor, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 338–347, 1979. View at Google Scholar
  43. M. Jullien and J. M. Thiollay, “Multi-species territoriality and dynamic of neotropical forest understorey bird flocks,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 227–252, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. K. A. Sullivan, “Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks,” Behaviour, vol. 91, pp. 294–311, 1984. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. J. T. Seppänen, J. T. Forsman, M. Mönkkönen, and R. L. Thomson, “Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics,” Ecology, vol. 88, no. 7, pp. 1622–1633, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. H. Balph, D. F. Balph, and H. C. Romesburg, “Social status signaling in winter flocking birds: an examination of a current hypothesis,” The Auk, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 78–93, 1979. View at Google Scholar
  47. P. F. Develey and P. C. Stouffer, “Effects of roads on movements by understory birds in mixed-species flocks in central Amazonian Brazil,” Conservation Biology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1416–1422, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. J. D. Brawn and F. B. Samson, “Winter behavior of tufted titmice,” The Wilson Bulletin, vol. 95, pp. 222–232, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  49. T. Hino, “Intraspecific differences in benefits from feeding in mixed-species flocks,” Journal of Avian Biology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 441–446, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. T. Hino, “Resident males of small species dominate immigrants of large species in heterospecific, winter bird flocks,” Ornithological Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 89–94, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  51. T. Hino, “Diversity and plasticity in branch-side use by birds in mixed-species flocks: niche differentiation or competitive hierarchy,” Ornithological Science, vol. 6, pp. 121–130, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  52. R. M. De Graaf, N. G. Tilghman, and S. H. Anderson, “Foraging guilds of North American birds,” Environmental Management, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 493–536, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. K. A. Schmidt, S. R. X. Dall, and J. A. van Gils, “The ecology of information: an overview on the ecological significance of making informed decisions,” Oikos, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 304–316, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. S. A. Hetrick, Investigation of tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) anti-predator vocalizations, M.S. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla, USA, 2006.
  55. R. D. Davic, “Linking keystone species and functional groups: a new operational definition of the keystone species concept,” Conservation Ecology, vol. 7, no. 1, p. r11, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. S. H. Anderson and H. H. Shugart Jr., “Habitat selection of breeding birds in an east Tennessee deciduous forest,” Ecology, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 828–837, 1974. View at Google Scholar
  57. K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, Eds., Connectivity Conservation, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  58. T. C. Grubb Jr. and P. F. Doherty Jr., “On home-range gap-crossing,” The Auk, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 618–628, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. W. Cresswell, “Non-lethal effects of predation in birds,” Ibis, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. D. Sol, L. Lefebvre, and J. D. Rodríguez-Teijeiro, “Brain size, innovative propensity and migratory behaviour in temperate Palaearctic birds,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 272, no. 1571, pp. 1433–1441, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. V. V. Pravosudov and T. C. Grubb Jr., “Vigilance in the tufted titmouse varies independently with air temperature and conspecific group size,” The Condor, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1064–1067, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. T. Caro, Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 2005.
  63. M. Mönkkönen, P. Helle, G. J. Niemi, and K. Montgomery, “Heterospecific attraction affects community structure and migrant abundances in northern breeding bird communities,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 2077–2083, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. R. L. Thomson, J. T. Forsman, and M. Mönkkönen, “Positive interactions between migrant and resident birds: testing the heterospecific attraction hypothesis,” Oecologia, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 431–438, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. J.-T. Seppänen, M. Mönkkönen, and J. T. Forsman, “Presence of other species may counter seasonal decline in breeding success—a field experiment with pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca,” Journal of Avian Biology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 380–385, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. J. J. Stachowicz, “Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities,” BioScience, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 235–246, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. C. M. Soard and G. Ritchison, “Chick-a-dee calls of Carolina chickadees convey information about degree of threat posed by avian predators,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1447–1453, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. K. A. Schmidt, E. Lee, R. S. Ostfeld, and K. E. Sieving, “Eastern chipmunks increase their perception of predation risk in response to titmouse alarm calls,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 759–763, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. J. J. Nocera and L. M. Ratcliffe, “Migrant and resident birds adjust antipredator behavior in response to social information accuracy,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 121–128, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus