DOCSLIB.ORG

Layers of Social Organisation in Rooks, a Monogamous Bird Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Layers of Social Organisation in Rooks, a Monogamous Bird Species UNIVERSITE DE STRASBOURG ECOLE DOCTORALE DES SCIENCES DE LA VIE ET DE LA SANTE IPHC, Département Écologie, Physiologie et Éthologie THÈSE Présentée par: Palmyre BOUCHERIE Soutenue le: 23 September 2016, Pour obtenir le grade de : Docteur de l’Université de Strasbourg Layers of social organisation in rooks, a monogamous bird species THÈSE dirigée par: Dr. Valérie DUFOUR Chargée de recherche HDR, CNRS, Université de Strasbourg RAPPORTEURS : Pr. Thomas BUGNYAR Professeur, Université de Vienne Dr. Claudia WASCHER Lecturer, Université Anglia Ruskin EXAMINATEUR : Dr. Bernard THIERRY Directeur de recherche, CNRS, Université de Strasbourg A mon grand-père, toujours avide d’apprendre. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... i PUBLICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... iv COMMUNICATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES AND PICTURES ........................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1. LIVING IN GROUPS ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Competition and cooperation: costs and benefits of group living ..................................................... 3 1.2. From simple aggregations to sociality .............................................................................................. 5 1.3. Role of kinship and reciprocity in cooperative relationships ............................................................. 7 2. SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE ................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Defining a species’ social organisation .............................................................................................. 9 2.2. Levels of social structure ................................................................................................................. 10 2.3. Affiliative relationships and associated structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4. Dominance relationships and social hierarchy ................................................................................ 14 2.5. Group constraints on relationships ................................................................................................. 16 2.5.1 Relatedness ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.5.2. Mating system: the case of monogamy ........................................................................................................... 16 2.5.3. Group composition .......................................................................................................................................... 18 2.6. Multi-level social organisations ....................................................................................................... 18 2.7. Spatio-temporal cohesion, dynamics of social structures ............................................................... 19 2.8. Link between advanced cognition and complex sociality ................................................................ 20 2.8.1 Cognition and sociality in mammalian and avian species ................................................................................. 20 2.8.2 How individuals do picture the relationship? ................................................................................................... 22 3. INTER AND INTRA-SPECIFIC VARIATIONS OF SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS......................................................................... 23 3.1. External constraints ......................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Inter-specific variability ..................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Intraspecific variability ...................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2. Internal constraints ......................................................................................................................... 25 4. THE STUDY OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN BIRDS ................................................................... 27 4.1. Diversity of birds’ social organisations and collective behaviours................................................... 28 4.2. Group living in birds: comments on coloniality ............................................................................... 29 4.3. Bird cognition and social complexity ............................................................................................... 30 4.4. Rooks’ social-ecology: Pair bonding and colonial living .................................................................. 31 5. AIM OF THIS THESIS ....................................................................................................................................... 34 GENERAL METHODS .............................................................................................................. 35 1. SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ROOKS (CORVUS FRUGILEGUS) .................................................................................. 36 1.1. General information ........................................................................................................................ 36 1.2. Reproduction ................................................................................................................................... 37 2. METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 39 2.1. Subjects ........................................................................................................................................... 39 2.2. Housing conditions .......................................................................................................................... 42 2.3. Observation procedure and data collection .................................................................................... 43 2.4. Ethogram ......................................................................................................................................... 44 2.5. Sociality index .................................................................................................................................. 46 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 47 CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 74 CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................................... 101 CHAPTER 6 .......................................................................................................................... 127 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 157 1. BEING LONG-TERM MONOGAMOUS IN A SOCIAL GROUP ...................................................................................... 160 1.1. Strength of the monogamous pair bond ....................................................................................... 160 1.2. Secondary affiliations in a socially monogamous species ............................................................. 162 1.3. Impact of secondary affiliations on the monogamous pair bond ................................................. 164 1.4. Same-sex relationships .................................................................................................................. 166 1.5. Variation and stability of pairs and secondary affiliations: comments on the notion of scale ..... 168 2. INVESTIGATING ROOKS’ SOCIAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................... 169 1.6. The role of pairs and solitary individuals in rooks’ structure ......................................................... 169 1.7. Robustness of social patterns ........................................................................................................ 172 1.8. Integration of new group members .............................................................................................. 172 2. WHAT ABOUT DOMINANCE RELATIONSHIPS IN ROOKS? ....................................................................................... 174 2.1. Linearity and dominance relationships ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DOLPHIN RESEARCH CENTER Legends & Myths & More!
    DOLPHIN RESEARCH CENTER Legends & Myths & More! Grade Level: 3rd -5 th Objectives: Students will construct their own meaning from a variety of legends and myths about dolphins and then create their own dolphin legend or myth. Florida Sunshine State Standards: Language Arts LA.A.2.2.5 The student reads and organizes information for a variety of purposes, including making a report, conducting interviews, taking a test, and performing an authentic task. LA.B.1.2 The student uses the writing processes effectively. Social Studies SS.A.1.2.1: The student understands how individuals, ideas, decisions, and events can influence history. SS.B.2.2.4: The student understands how factors such as population growth, human migration, improved methods of transportation and communication, and economic development affect the use and conservation of natural resources. Science SC.G.1.2.2 The student knows that living things compete in a climatic region with other living things and that structural adaptations make them fit for an environment. National Science Education Standards: Content Standard C (K-4) - Characteristics of Organisms : Each plant or animal has different structures that serve different functions in growth, survival, and reproduction. For example, humans have distinct body structures for walking, holding, seeing, and talking. Content Standard C (5-8) - Diversity and adaptations of Organisms : Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. Species acquire many of their unique characteristics through biological adaptation, which involves the selection of naturally occurring variations in populations. Biological adaptations include changes in structures, behaviors, or physiology that enhance survival and reproductive success in a particular environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispersal, Philopatry, and the Role of Fissionfusion Dynamics In
    MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, **(*): ***–*** (*** 2012) C 2012 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00559.x Dispersal, philopatry, and the role of fission-fusion dynamics in bottlenose dolphins YI-JIUN JEAN TSAI and JANET MANN,1 Reiss Science Building, Rm 406, Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, U.S.A. ABSTRACT In this quantitative study of locational and social dispersal at the individual level, we show that bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) continued to use their na- tal home ranges well into adulthood. Despite substantial home range overlap, mother–offspring associations decreased after weaning, particularly for sons. These data provide strong evidence for bisexual locational philopatry and mother–son avoidance in bottlenose dolphins. While bisexual locational philopatry offers the benefits of familiar social networks and foraging habitats, the costs of philopatry may be mitigated by reduced mother–offspring association, in which the risk of mother–daughter resource competition and mother–son mating is reduced. Our study highlights the advantages of high fission–fusion dynamics and longitudinal studies, and emphasizes the need for clarity when describing dispersal in this and other species. Key words: bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops sp., association, juvenile, philopatry, locational dispersal, mother-offspring, ranging, site fidelity, social dispersal. Dispersal is a key life history process that affects population demography, spatial distribution, and genetic structure, as well as individual
    [Show full text]
  • Two Blind Men Describe “Bloody Good
    Frame — a re-enactment of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Twenty-two seconds of footage of the as- sassination, taken in Dallas in 1963 by Abra- ham Zapruda, was sold to Life magazine on the night of the shooting for $150,000. Life published stills from the film shortly after- wards. (Later, the Zapruda family would be paid $10 million by the US government for rights to the film). Stills were also re- produced in the Warren Commission Report of September 1964. The Warren Commis- sion also used the film as the basis for a se- ries of reconstructions that served as part of their investigation. The film itself was not broadcast until 1975. Perhaps more than any other, this moving image defined the turbu- lence of the 1960s for a wide American public during the 1970s. Don Delillo’s 1997 novel Underground cap- tures the sense of this moment in a fictional TIME account of one of the film’s first public, or semi-public, viewings in the summer of 1974. CAPTCHA’D The scene takes place in an apartment with television sets in every room. In each room a video of the same piece of footage plays, FOR GLOBAL with a slight delay. Delillo writes: “The event was rare and GOOD? strange. It was the screening of a bootleg copy of an eight-millimeter home movie that ran for twenty seconds. A little over twenty PALO ALTO — In 2002, Stanford Univer- seconds probably. The footage was known as sity launched a “community reading project” the Zapruda film and almost no one outside called Discovering Dickens, making Dickens’s the government had seen it.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Adaptations of Social Bonding in Birds Nathan J
    Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2007) 362, 489–505 doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1991 Published online 24 January 2007 Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds Nathan J. Emery1,*, Amanda M. Seed2, Auguste M. P. von Bayern1 and Nicola S. Clayton2 1Sub-department of Animal Behaviour, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 8AA, UK 2Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK The ‘social intelligence hypothesis’ was originally conceived to explain how primates may have evolved their superior intellect and large brains when compared with other animals. Although some birds such as corvids may be intellectually comparable to apes, the same relationship between sociality and brain size seen in primates has not been found for birds, possibly suggesting a role for other non-social factors. But bird sociality is different from primate sociality. Most monkeys and apes form stable groups, whereas most birds are monogamous, and only form large flocks outside of the breeding season. Some birds form lifelong pair bonds and these species tend to have the largest brains relative to body size. Some of these species are known for their intellectual abilities (e.g. corvids and parrots), while others are not (e.g. geese and albatrosses). Although socio-ecological factors may explain some of the differences in brain size and intelligence between corvids/parrots and geese/albatrosses, we predict that the type and quality of the bonded relationship is also critical. Indeed, we present empirical evidence that rook and jackdaw partnerships resemble primate and dolphin alliances. Although social interactions within a pair may seem simple on the surface, we argue that cognition may play an important role in the maintenance of long-term relationships, something we name as ‘relationship intelligence’.
    [Show full text]
  • Crows and Ravens Wildlife Notes
    12. Crows & Ravens Crows and ravens belong to the large family Corvidae, along with more than 200 other species including jays, nutcrackers and magpies. These less-than-melodious birds, you may be surprised to learn, are classified as songbirds. raven American Crow insects, grain, fruit, the eggs and young of other birds, Crows are some of the most conspicuous and best known organic garbage and just about anything that they can find of all birds. They are intelligent, wary and adapt well to or overpower. Crows also feed on the carcasses of winter – human activity. As with most other wildlife species, crows and road-killed animals. are considered to have “good” points and “bad” ones— value judgements made strictly by humans. They are found Crows have extremely keen senses of sight and hearing. in all 50 states and parts of Canada and Mexico. They are wary and usually post sentries while they feed. Sentry birds watch for danger, ready to alert the feeding birds with a sharp alarm caw. Once aloft, crows fly at 25 Biology to 30 mph. If a strong tail wind is present, they can hit 60 Also known as the common crow, an adult American mph. These skillful fliers have a large repertoire of moves crow weighs about 20 ounces. Its body length is 15 to 18 designed to throw off airborne predators. inches and its wings span up to three feet. Both males Crows are relatively gregarious. Throughout most of the and females are black from their beaks to the tips of their year, they flock in groups ranging from family units to tails.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunting Deer in California
    HUNTING DEER IN CALIFORNIA We hope this guide will help deer hunters by encouraging a greater understanding of the various subspecies of mule deer found in California and explaining effective hunting techniques for various situations and conditions encountered throughout the state during general and special deer seasons. Second Edition August 2002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME L. Ryan Broddrick, Director WILDLIFE PROGRAMS BRANCH David S. Zezulak, Ph.D., Chief Written by John Higley Technical Advisors: Don Koch; Eric Loft, Ph.D.; Terry M. Mansfield; Kenneth Mayer; Sonke Mastrup; Russell C. Mohr; David O. Smith; Thomas B. Stone Graphic Design and Layout: Lorna Bernard and Dana Lis Cover Photo: Steve Guill Funded by the Deer Herd Management Plan Implementation Program TABLE OF CON T EN T S INTRODUCT I ON ................................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: THE DEER OF CAL I FORN I A .........................................................................................................7 Columbian black-tailed deer ....................................................................................................................8 California mule deer ................................................................................................................................8 Rocky Mountain mule deer .....................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries
    Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)1 indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015), while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among various mortality factors.2 This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and the Endangered Species Act. The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs
    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent History of Feral Hogs • Introduce to New World by De Soto in 1539 as a food source. • Made it to Texas in 1680’s. • Population explosion beginning in 1930 thru now……Why? – Great Depression….hardship of the 30’s. – Imported for hunting opportunities. What is the Current Status? • Population estimates of >1 million. • Occupy 244 of 254 counties. • 2007- Caused $52 million in Ag only. • $200/Hog/Year in Damage. • 42 of 50 States. Feral Hog Biology • Life expectancy of 4-5 years. • Reproductively capable of 6 months if nutrition is available. – 1st litter can be weaned before 1st birthday of sow. • Gestation of 115 days. • Average littler size of 4-6 piglets. • What do you call a group of feral hogs? Feral Hog Biology….Continued • Sounders typically of 6-12 individuals can be >30. • Mature hogs from 110-300 lbs. • Come in 3 flavors. – Eurasian Wild Boar – Domesticated hogs released – Combination of the two Areas of Feral Hog Damage • Agricultural:$52 million in 2007. • Disease • Predation • Habitat Destruction • Accidents • Sensitive Areas……example Wetlands. • Residential • Recreational • $800 million animal in Ag/Environmental. Areas of Feral Hog Damage...Continued • Length of tie required for land recovery. • Loss of topsoil. • Destruction of sensitive habitat. • Predation of livestock and wildlife population. • Introduction of other invasive species. – Reduction or loss of native vegetation. • Reduced water quality. – Roadway damage, etc…. What are Legal Options? • Hunting • Trapping • Dogs • Snares • Ariel Gunning What else is Legal? • Are you required to hold a hunting license shoot/hunt hogs? –It Depends!!! Is it Legal to Raise Feral Hogs? • NO! It is not legal to posses or feed feral hogs without a permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence in Corvids and Apes: a Case of Convergent Evolution? Amanda Seed*, Nathan Emery & Nicola Claytonà
    Ethology CURRENT ISSUES – PERSPECTIVES AND REVIEWS Intelligence in Corvids and Apes: A Case of Convergent Evolution? Amanda Seed*, Nathan Emery & Nicola Claytonà * Department of Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany School of Biological & Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK à Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK (Invited Review) Correspondence Abstract Nicola Clayton, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Intelligence is suggested to have evolved in primates in response to com- Street, Cambridge CB23EB, UK. plexities in the environment faced by their ancestors. Corvids, a large- E-mail: [email protected] brained group of birds, have been suggested to have undergone a con- vergent evolution of intelligence [Emery & Clayton (2004) Science, Vol. Received: November 13, 2008 306, pp. 1903–1907]. Here we review evidence for the proposal from Initial acceptance: December 26, 2008 both ultimate and proximate perspectives. While we show that many of Final acceptance: February 15, 2009 (M. Taborsky) the proposed hypotheses for the evolutionary origin of great ape intelli- gence also apply to corvids, further study is needed to reveal the selec- doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01644.x tive pressures that resulted in the evolution of intelligent behaviour in both corvids and apes. For comparative proximate analyses we empha- size the need to be explicit about the level of analysis to reveal the type of convergence that has taken place. Although there is evidence that corvids and apes solve social and physical problems with similar speed and flexibility, there is a great deal more to be learned about the repre- sentations and algorithms underpinning these computations in both groups.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A
    s l a m m a y t T i M S N v I i A e G t A n i p E S r a A C a C E H n T M i THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity The Humane Society of the United State s/ World Society for the Protection of Animals 2009 1 1 1 2 0 A M , n o t s o g B r o . 1 a 0 s 2 u - e a t i p s u S w , t e e r t S h t u o S 9 8 THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons, and Richard Farinato, 4th edition Editors: Naomi A. Rose and Debra Firmani, 4th edition ©2009 The Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals. All rights reserved. ©2008 The HSUS. All rights reserved. Printed on recycled paper, acid free and elemental chlorine free, with soy-based ink. Cover: ©iStockphoto.com/Ying Ying Wong Overview n the debate over marine mammals in captivity, the of the natural environment. The truth is that marine mammals have evolved physically and behaviorally to survive these rigors. public display industry maintains that marine mammal For example, nearly every kind of marine mammal, from sea lion Iexhibits serve a valuable conservation function, people to dolphin, travels large distances daily in a search for food. In learn important information from seeing live animals, and captivity, natural feeding and foraging patterns are completely lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A
    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Riddle-Makers Have Hidden Behind the Fire of a Dragon
    Volume 38 Number 2 Article 7 5-15-2020 What the Riddle-Makers Have Hidden Behind the Fire of a Dragon Laurence Smith Independent Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore Part of the Children's and Young Adult Literature Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Laurence (2020) "What the Riddle-Makers Have Hidden Behind the Fire of a Dragon," Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: Vol. 38 : No. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol38/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mythopoeic Society at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To join the Mythopoeic Society go to: http://www.mythsoc.org/join.htm Mythcon 51: A VIRTUAL “HALFLING” MYTHCON July 31 - August 1, 2021 (Saturday and Sunday) http://www.mythsoc.org/mythcon/mythcon-51.htm Mythcon 52: The Mythic, the Fantastic, and the Alien Albuquerque, New Mexico; July 29 - August 1, 2022 http://www.mythsoc.org/mythcon/mythcon-52.htm Abstract Classical mythology, folklore, and fairy tales are full of dragons which exhibit fantastic attributes such as breathing fire, hoarding treasure, or possessing more than one head. This study maintains that some of these puzzling phenomena may derive from riddles, and will focus particularly on some plausible answers that refer to a real creature that has for millennia been valued and hunted by man: the honeybee.
    [Show full text]