Communal roosting: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m →The Evolution of Communal Roosting: Removed empty section headings under title pages |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Evolution of Communal Roosting == |
== The Evolution of Communal Roosting == |
||
{{Empty section|date=October 2015}} |
|||
=== The Information Center Hypothesis (ICH) === |
=== The Information Center Hypothesis (ICH) === |
||
{{Empty section|date=October 2015}} |
{{Empty section|date=October 2015}} |
||
| Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
== Examples of Communal Roosts in Extant Species == |
== Examples of Communal Roosts in Extant Species == |
||
{{Empty section|date=October 2015}} |
|||
=== Communal roosting in birds === |
=== Communal roosting in birds === |
||
Communal roosting has been observed in numerous avian species. Acorn woodpeckers (''[[Acorn woodpecker|Melanerpes formicivorus]]'') are known to form communal roosts during the winter months, sharing their body heat and decreasing the thermoregulatory demands on all individuals in the roost.<ref>Plessis, Ma du., Morné A., Wesley W. Weathers, and Walter D. Koenig. “Energetic benefits of communal roosting by acorn woodpeckers during the nonbreeding season.” ''Condor'' (1994): 631–637.</ref> The tree swallow ([[Tree swallow|''Tachycineta bicolor'']]) is known to form communal roosts and exhibits high roost fidelity and it is believed that high conspecific attraction leads to the forming of communal roosts.<ref>Laughlin, A. J., D. R. Sheldon, D. W. Winkler, and C. M. Taylor. "Behavioral Drivers of Communal Roosting in a Songbird: A Combined Theoretical and Empirical Approach." ''Behavioral Ecology'' 25.4 (2014): 734-43. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.</ref> Red-billed choughs ([[Red-billed chough|''Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax'']]) roost in either a main roost or a sub roost. Main roosts are used constantly, whereas the sub roosts are used irregularly by individuals lacking both a mate and territory. These sub roosts are believed to help improve the ability of non-breeding choughs to find a mate and increase their territory.<ref>Blanco, Guillermo and Jose L. Tella. “Temporal, spatial and social segregation of red-billed choose between two types of communal roost: a role for mating and territory acquisition.” ''The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour'' 57 (1999): 1219-1227.</ref> Interspecies roosts have also been observed in nature. Great egrets (''[[Great egret|Ardea alba]]''), little blue herons (''[[Little blue heron|Egretta caerulea]]''), tricolored herons (''[[Tricolored heron|Egretta tricolor]]''), and the snowy egret (''[[Snowy egret|Egretta thula]]'') are known to form large communal roosts in San Blas, Mexico. It has been shown that the snowy egret determines the general location of the roost due to the fact that the other three species rely on it for its abilities to find food sources. In these roosts there is often a hierarchical system, where the more dominant species (in this case the snowy egret) will typically occupy the more desirable higher perches.<ref>Burger, J., et al. "Intraspecific and interspecific interactions at a mixed species roost of ciconiiformes in San Blas, Mexico. ''Biology of Behaviour'' (1977): 309-327.</ref> Interspecies roosts have also been observed among other avian species.<ref>Burger, Joanna. "A model for the evolution of mixed-species colonies of Ciconiiformes." ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' (1981): 143-167.</ref><ref>Munn, Charles A., and John W. Terborgh. "Multi-species territoriality in Neotropical foraging flocks." ''Condor'' (1979): 338-347.</ref> |
Communal roosting has been observed in numerous avian species. Acorn woodpeckers (''[[Acorn woodpecker|Melanerpes formicivorus]]'') are known to form communal roosts during the winter months, sharing their body heat and decreasing the thermoregulatory demands on all individuals in the roost.<ref>Plessis, Ma du., Morné A., Wesley W. Weathers, and Walter D. Koenig. “Energetic benefits of communal roosting by acorn woodpeckers during the nonbreeding season.” ''Condor'' (1994): 631–637.</ref> The tree swallow ([[Tree swallow|''Tachycineta bicolor'']]) is known to form communal roosts and exhibits high roost fidelity and it is believed that high conspecific attraction leads to the forming of communal roosts.<ref>Laughlin, A. J., D. R. Sheldon, D. W. Winkler, and C. M. Taylor. "Behavioral Drivers of Communal Roosting in a Songbird: A Combined Theoretical and Empirical Approach." ''Behavioral Ecology'' 25.4 (2014): 734-43. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.</ref> Red-billed choughs ([[Red-billed chough|''Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax'']]) roost in either a main roost or a sub roost. Main roosts are used constantly, whereas the sub roosts are used irregularly by individuals lacking both a mate and territory. These sub roosts are believed to help improve the ability of non-breeding choughs to find a mate and increase their territory.<ref>Blanco, Guillermo and Jose L. Tella. “Temporal, spatial and social segregation of red-billed choose between two types of communal roost: a role for mating and territory acquisition.” ''The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour'' 57 (1999): 1219-1227.</ref> Interspecies roosts have also been observed in nature. Great egrets (''[[Great egret|Ardea alba]]''), little blue herons (''[[Little blue heron|Egretta caerulea]]''), tricolored herons (''[[Tricolored heron|Egretta tricolor]]''), and the snowy egret (''[[Snowy egret|Egretta thula]]'') are known to form large communal roosts in San Blas, Mexico. It has been shown that the snowy egret determines the general location of the roost due to the fact that the other three species rely on it for its abilities to find food sources. In these roosts there is often a hierarchical system, where the more dominant species (in this case the snowy egret) will typically occupy the more desirable higher perches.<ref>Burger, J., et al. "Intraspecific and interspecific interactions at a mixed species roost of ciconiiformes in San Blas, Mexico. ''Biology of Behaviour'' (1977): 309-327.</ref> Interspecies roosts have also been observed among other avian species.<ref>Burger, Joanna. "A model for the evolution of mixed-species colonies of Ciconiiformes." ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' (1981): 143-167.</ref><ref>Munn, Charles A., and John W. Terborgh. "Multi-species territoriality in Neotropical foraging flocks." ''Condor'' (1979): 338-347.</ref> |
||
| Line 52: | Line 48: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
* |
* |
||
Revision as of 15:50, 20 October 2015
Communal roosting is defined as a grouping of individuals, typically of the same species, who congregate in an area for a few hours based on an external signal, returning to the same site with the reappearance of the signal. [1][2] Signals responsible for this congregation include: nightfall, high tide, or other environmental signals.[2] The distinction between communal roosting and cooperative breeding is the absence of chicks in communal roosts.[2] While communal roosting is most often seen in birds, it has been shown to be present in bats, primates, and insects as well .[2] [3] Many benefits are associated with communal roosting including: increased foraging ability, decreased thermoregulatory demands, decreased predation, and increased species-specific interactions.[3][4] While there are many proposed evolutionary concepts for how communal roosting evolved, no specific hypothesis is currently supported by the scientific community as a whole.
The Evolution of Communal Roosting
The Information Center Hypothesis (ICH)
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (October 2015) |
The Two Strategies Hypothesis
The Two Strategies Hypothesis was put forth by Patrick Weatherhead in 1983 as an alternative to the then popular Information Center Hypothesis. The Two Strategies Hypothesis proposes that instead of joining roosts due to increased foraging capabilities, different individuals within a communal roost participate in the roost for different reasons. This hypothesis explains that older more experienced foragers remain within a communal roost due to the fact that they are considered dominant, and therefore able to obtain the safest roosts, with the less dominant and unsuccessful foragers acting as a buffer to predation. This is similar to the selfish herd theory, which states that individuals within herds will utilize conspecifics to avoid predation. The younger individuals will remain with the roost as they still gain some safety from predation through the dilution factor, as well as the ability to learn from the more experienced foragers.[5] A study of roosting rooks (Corvus frugilegus) supports this hypothesis, showing that within rook communal roosts there exists an inherent hierarchy, with the most dominant occupying the roosts highest in the tree, and thus safer from terrestrial predators.[6]
The Recruitment Center Hypothesis (RCH)
Proposed by Heinz Richner and Phillip Heeb in 1996, the Recruitment Center Hypothesis explains communal roosting as a result of group foraging.[2] The recruitment center hypothesis explains behaviors seen at communal roosts such as: the passing of information, aerial displays, and the presence or lack of calls by leaders.[2] To begin this hypothesis assumes:
- Patchy feeding area: Food is not evenly distributed across an area but grouped into patches
- Short-lasting: Patches are not present for an extended period of time
- Relatively abundant: There are many patches with relatively equal amounts of food present in each.[2]
These assumptions decrease relative food competition since control over a food source is not correlated to the duration or richness of said source.[3] The passing of information acts to create a foraging group. Group foraging acts to decrease predation and increase relative feeding time at the cost of sharing a food source.[2] The decrease in predation is due to the dilution factor and early alert system created by having multiple animals alert.[2] Increases in relative feeding are explained by decreasing time spent watching for predators and social learning.[2] Recruiting new members to food patches benefits successful foragers by increasing relative numbers.[3] Less successful foragers are benefited by gaining knowledge of where food sources are located.[3] Aerial displays are used to recruit individuals to participate in group foraging. In the presence of patchy resources, Richner and Heeb propose the simplest manner would be to form a communal roost and recruit participants there.[2] Heeb and Richner explain the lack of all birds performing such a display by proposing these birds either do not belong to a patch or are part of a group that has a sufficient number of participants.[2]
Support for the recruitment center hypothesis has been shown in crows. Reviewing a previous study by John Marzluff, Bernd Heinrich, and Colleen Marzluff, Entienne Danchin and Heinz Richner demonstrate that the collected data proves the Recruitment Center Hypothesis instead of the Information Center Hypothesis espoused by Marzluff, et. al.[7] Both knowledgeable and naive birds are shown to make up the roosts and leave them at the same time, with the naive birds being led to the food sources.[7] Aerial demonstrations were shown to peak around the same time as the discovery of a new food source.[7] These communities were made up of non-breeders which forage in patchily distributed food environments, following the assumptions made by Richner and Heeb.[2][7]
Potential Benefits of Communal Roosting
| This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (October 2015) |
Potential Costs of Communal Roosting
| This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (October 2015) |
Examples of Communal Roosts in Extant Species
Communal roosting in birds
Communal roosting has been observed in numerous avian species. Acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus) are known to form communal roosts during the winter months, sharing their body heat and decreasing the thermoregulatory demands on all individuals in the roost.[8] The tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) is known to form communal roosts and exhibits high roost fidelity and it is believed that high conspecific attraction leads to the forming of communal roosts.[9] Red-billed choughs (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) roost in either a main roost or a sub roost. Main roosts are used constantly, whereas the sub roosts are used irregularly by individuals lacking both a mate and territory. These sub roosts are believed to help improve the ability of non-breeding choughs to find a mate and increase their territory.[10] Interspecies roosts have also been observed in nature. Great egrets (Ardea alba), little blue herons (Egretta caerulea), tricolored herons (Egretta tricolor), and the snowy egret (Egretta thula) are known to form large communal roosts in San Blas, Mexico. It has been shown that the snowy egret determines the general location of the roost due to the fact that the other three species rely on it for its abilities to find food sources. In these roosts there is often a hierarchical system, where the more dominant species (in this case the snowy egret) will typically occupy the more desirable higher perches.[11] Interspecies roosts have also been observed among other avian species.[12][13]
Communal Roosting in Insects
Communal roosting has also been well documented among insects, particularly butterflies. The passion-vine butterfly (Heliconius erato) is known to form large nocturnal roosts. It is believed that these roosts deter potential predators due to the fact that predators infrequently attack large roosts.[1] Communal roosting has also been observed in south peruvian tiger beetles of the genus Coleoptera and Cicindelidae. These species of tiger beetle have been observed to form communal roosts comprising anywhere from 2-9 individuals at night and disbanding during the day. It is hypothesized that these beetles roost high in the treetops in order to avoid ground-based predators.[14]
Communal Roosting in Mammals
While there are few observations of communal roosting mammals, the trait has been seen in several species of bats. The little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) is known to participate in communal roosts of up to 37 during cold nights in order to decrease thermoregulatory demands, with the roost disbanding at daybreak.[15] Several other species of bats, including the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) have also been observed to roost in maternal colonies in order to reduce the thermoregulatory demands on both the lactating mothers and juveniles.[16][17]
See also
- Communal breeding
- Habitat
- Ecology
- Ecosystem
- Habitat conservation
- Habitat fragmentation
- Reproduction
- Mating system
- Cooperative breeding
- Heliconius charithonia
References
- ^ a b Finkbeiner, Susan D., Adriana D. Briscoe, and Robert D. Reed. “The benefit of being a social butterfly: communal roosting deters predation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 279.1739 (2012): 2769–2776.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Richner, Heinz; Heeb, Phillip (March 1996). "Communal life: Honest signaling and the recruitment center hypothesis". Behavioral Ecology. doi:10.1093/beheco/7.1.115.
- ^ a b c d e Beauchamp, Guy (1999). "The evolution of communal roosting in birds: origin and secondary losses". Behavioral Ecology.
- ^ Ientile, Renzo (2014). "Year-round used large communal roosts of Black-billed Magpie Pica pica in an urban habitat". Avocetta.
- ^ Weatherhead, Patrick (February 1983). "Two Principal Strategies in Avian Communal Roosts". The American Naturalist: pp. 237–247. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help) - ^ Swingland, Ian R. (August 1977). "The social and spatial organization of winter communal roosting in Rooks (Corvus frugilegus)". Journal of Zoology: pp. 509–528. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help) - ^ a b c d Danchin, Entienne; Richner, Heinz (2001). "Viable and unviable hypotheses for the evolution of raven roosts". Animal Behavior (61).
- ^ Plessis, Ma du., Morné A., Wesley W. Weathers, and Walter D. Koenig. “Energetic benefits of communal roosting by acorn woodpeckers during the nonbreeding season.” Condor (1994): 631–637.
- ^ Laughlin, A. J., D. R. Sheldon, D. W. Winkler, and C. M. Taylor. "Behavioral Drivers of Communal Roosting in a Songbird: A Combined Theoretical and Empirical Approach." Behavioral Ecology 25.4 (2014): 734-43. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.
- ^ Blanco, Guillermo and Jose L. Tella. “Temporal, spatial and social segregation of red-billed choose between two types of communal roost: a role for mating and territory acquisition.” The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour 57 (1999): 1219-1227.
- ^ Burger, J., et al. "Intraspecific and interspecific interactions at a mixed species roost of ciconiiformes in San Blas, Mexico. Biology of Behaviour (1977): 309-327.
- ^ Burger, Joanna. "A model for the evolution of mixed-species colonies of Ciconiiformes." Quarterly Review of Biology (1981): 143-167.
- ^ Munn, Charles A., and John W. Terborgh. "Multi-species territoriality in Neotropical foraging flocks." Condor (1979): 338-347.
- ^ Pearson, David L., and Joseph J. Anderson. "Perching heights and nocturnal communal roosts of some tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in southeastern Peru." Biotropica (1985): 126-129.
- ^ Barclay, Robert MR. "Night roosting behavior of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus." Journal of Mammalogy 63.3 (1982): 464-474.
- ^ Klug, Brandon J., and Robert MR Barclay. "Thermoregulation during reproduction in the solitary, foliage-roosting hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)." Journal of Mammalogy 94.2 (2013): 477-487.
- ^ Agosta, Salvatore J. "Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) in North America: a case for conserving an abundant species." Mammal Review 32.3 (2002): 179-198.