DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF RELATED SPECIES OF FLYCATCHERS (MUSCICAPIDAE) FAMILY

A. Markova, V. Serebryakov
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

Abstract



The article is devoted to the observation of differences in relation between aggressive behavior of related species of Flycatchers (Muscicapidae) family and behavior acts in naturally watering places. Observations have reviled the timing separation between presence and engagement of Flycatchers in morning hours and relation with acts of aggression. Each representative of Flycatchers family is using the watering place in different ways. The correlation between intraspecific and interspecific contacts with the predominance of interspecific and highly aggressive interactions has been analyzed. The rating of successfulness of the acts of aggression has been established for every particular group of Flycatchers. It demonstrates the energetic justification of aggressive behavior for spotter, red-breasted and pied flycatchers but energetic overspend and failure for collared flycatcher.


Keywords


behavior, aggression, Muscicapidae, watering place

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amanova MA. [To description of rhythm of arriving of birds on watering in theconditions of the desert]. Materials of the IV All-union ornithologicalconference; Alma-Ata; 1965. p. 9–10. Russian.

Egorova GV, Ivanov AE, Konstantinov VM. Sravnitel'naja jekologija blizkorodstvennyh vidov muholovok roda Ficedula – M.: FGOU-VPOMGAVMiB imeni K. I. Skrjabina, 2007. 179 s. Russian

Ivanitskiy V.V. (1982) [Ethological aspects of relationship between close animal species]. Zoological journal. 1982;61(10):1461-1471. Russian.

Ivannitskiy VV. (1980) [Interspesific relationship sympatric species heaters (Oenanthe, Turdidae, Passeriformes). The behavioral aspects of coexistence of similar species]. Zoological journal. 1980;59(5):739-749. Russian.

Ivanov A. E. Jekologija blizkorodstvennyh vidov muholovok roda Ficedula v mestah ih simbiotopii. Russian ornithological journal. 2006;13(351):87–94. Russian.

Marisova IV, Holina NM. [On the biology of collared flycatcher (Muscicapa albicollis Team.) in the western regions of Ukraine]. Flora and fauna of the Soviet Carpathians. Uzhgorod, 1959:40:75–81. Russian.

Marochkina EA, Baranovskiy AV, Ananeva SI, et. al. [Individual feeding habits and behavior of spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata]. Russian ornithological journal. 2005;14(296):744–748. Russian.

Panov EN, Ivanitskiy VV. [The interspecific territorial relations in the mixed population of Finsch's Wheatear Oenanthe finchi and pied wheatea O.pleschanka on the peninsula of Mangyshlak]. Zoological journal. 1975;54(9):1357-1370. Russian.

Panov EN. [Mechanisms of communications in birds]. Moscov: Science. 1978. 304 p.

Panov EN, Ivanitskiy VV. [Spatial relationship of four types of shrikes in the Southern Turkmenistan]. Zoological journal. 1979;58(10):1518-1535. Russian.

Feathered friends. Avian Ukraine world. [http://pernatidruzi.org.ua/ art.php?id=565]. Ukrainian.

Popov SV, Ilchenko OG. [Methodical recommendations about ethological supervision over mammals in slavery]. Moskov: Moskovskiy zoopark, 2008.165 p. Russian.

Ryabitsev VK. [Results of research of the interspecific territorial relations of birds on the Southern Yamal]. Zoological journal. 1977;56(2):232– 242. Russian.

Arnott G, Elwood RW. Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Animal Behaviour. 2009;77:991–1004.

Briefer E, Rybak F, Aubin T. When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Animal Behaviour. 2008;76:1319–1325.

Brunton DH, Evans B, Cope T, et.al. A test of the dear enemy hypothesis in female New Zealand bellbirds (Anthornis melanura): female neighbors as threats. Behavioral Ecology. 2008;19:791–798.

Colléter M, Brown C. Personality traits predict hierarchy rank in male rainbowfish social groups. Animal Behaviour. 2011;81(6):1231–1237.

Dingemanse NJ, Araya-Ajoy YG. Interacting personalities: behavioural ecology meets quantitative genetics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2015;30(2):88–97.

Dingemanse NJ, de Goede P. The relation between dominance and exploratory behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behavioral Ecology. 2004;15(6):1023–1030.

Eason P, Hannon SJ. New birds on the block-new neighbors increase defensive costs for territorial-male willow ptarmigan. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 1994;34:419–426.

Forsman JT, Hjernquist MB, Taipale J, et.al. Competitor density cues for habitat quality facilitating habitat selection and investment decisions. Behavioral Ecology. 2007;19(3):539–545.

Garamszegi LZ, Markó G, Herczeg G. A meta-analysis of correlated behaviors with implications for behavioral syndromes: relationships between particular behavioral traits. Behavioral Ecology. 2013;24(5):1068–1080.

Grether GF, Losin N, Anderson CN, et. al. The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biological Reviews. 2009;84:617–635.

Grether GF, Anderson CN, Drury JP, et. al. The evolutionary consequences of interspecific aggression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2013;1289:48–68.

Hewitt SE, Macdonald DW, Dugdale HL. Context-dependent linear dominance hierarchies in social groups of European badgers, Meles meles. Animal Behaviour. 2009;77(1):161–169.

Jaakkonen T,. Kivelä SM, Meier CM, et. al. The use and relative importance of intraspecific and interspecific social information in a bird community. Behavioral Ecology. 2014;26(1):55–64.

Lehtonen TK, McCrary JK, Meyer A. Territorial aggression can be sensitive to the status of heterospecific intruders. Behavioral Processess. 2010;84:598–601.

Martin PR, Martin TE. Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with wood warblers. Ecology. 2001;82:189–206.

Mikami OK, Kawata M. Does interspecific territoriality reflect the intensity of ecological interactions? A theoretical model for interspecific territoriality. Evolutionary Ecology Research. 2004;6:765–775.

Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT. Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithological Science. 2002;1:41–51.

Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Soppela K. Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communities? Oecologia. 1990;85:218–225.

Parejo D, Danchin E, Aviles J. The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality? Behavioral Ecology. 2005;16:96–105.

Peiman KS, Robinson BW. Ecology and evolution of resource – related heterospecific aggression. Quarterly Review of Biology. 2010;85:133–158.

Rosell F, Gundersen G, Le Galliard JF. Territory ownership and familiarity status affect how much male root voles (Microtus oeconomus) invest in territory defence. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2008;62:1559–1568.

Seppänen JT, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, et. al. Social information use is a process across space, time and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology. 2007;88:P. 1622–1633.

Tanner CJ, Adler FR. To fight or not to fight: context-dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Animal Behavioral. 2009;77:297–305.

Temeles E.J. The role of neighbors in territorial systems – when are they dear enemies. Animal Behaviour. 1994;47:339–350.

Umapathy G, Kumar A. The occurrence of arboreal mammals in the wet evergreen forests of the Anamalai hills in the Western Ghats, South India. Biological Conservation. 2000;92:311–319.

Weiß BM, Kotrschal K, Foerstera K.A longitudinal study of dominance and aggression in greylag geese (Anser anser). Behavioral Ecology. 2011;22(3):616–624.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.