Jump to content

Talk:Communal roosting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tmeister21 (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 21 October 2015 (Update Evolution of Animal Behavior assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEcology Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhumke, Walter Moczygemba (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Erm22, Akg16.Communal roosting is practiced by birds, bats[1] and some insects.[2]

Some benefits as a result of communal roosting are reduced predation risk, increased breading interactions and reduced cost in defending a territory. [3]

Notes

  1. ^ Toth (July-August 2015). "Females as mobile resources: communal roosts promote the adoption of lek breeding in a temperate bat" (4): 1156–1163. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Finkbeiner (July 22 2012). "The benefit of being a social butterfly: communal roosting deters predation" (1739): 2769–2776. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ {{cite journal|last1=Lentile|title=Year-round used large communal roosts of Black-billed Magpie Pica pica in an urban habitat.|date=December 2014|issue=2|pages=59-65|accessdate=September 27 2015} }

Courtneywallingford (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Potential bibliography to update and expand article, comments and suggestions appriciated

Hiraldo, Fernando., Borja Heredia, and Juan Carlos Alonso. “Communal Roosting of Wintering Red Kites Milvus milvus (Aves, Accipitridae): Social Feeding Strategies for the Exploitation of Food Resources.” Ethology 93.2 (1993): 117-124. 

Brief Summary: The article analyzed the communal roosting of wintering red kites, and whether their behavior could be explained through the ICH (Information Centre Hypothesis). It concluded by stating that kites in roosts tended to have larger roaming ranges and shared food upon discovery, and that network foraging was the purpose for gathering at roosting sites. This fits under the ICH, which the article defined as “...bird assemblies have evolved primarily for the efficient exploitation of unpredictable or irregularly distributed resources, via exchange of information regarding the location of food”).

 Bijleveld, Allert I., Martijn Egas, Jan A. van Gils and Theunis Piersma

“Beyond the information centre hypothesis: communal roosting for information on food, predators, travel companions and mates?” Oikos 119.2 (2009): 277-285.

Brief Summary: The article suggests a more detailed explanation of the ICH. The ICH explains that roosting serves as an information center for food, but the authors believe that aspects such as mating, companionship, and predation should be considered. The study focused on the red knot bird species, explaining how gizzard size affected feeding rates and companions (knots with larger gizzards ate quicker and would leave faster than knots with smaller gizzards - greater exposure to predation after one leaves). Other interesting facts included mating (costs of mating and territory acquisition reduced for red-billed choughs), improved synchronization of migration, moulting simultaneously together reduces predation risk (loss of flying ability ).

Blanco, Guillermo and Jose L. Tella. “Temporal, spatial and social segregation of red-billed choughs 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. 

Brief Summary: This article focuses on the roosting behavior red-billed choughs, which roost in either a main roost or a subroost. Main roosts are used constantly, whereas the sub roosts are used irregularly by red-billed choughs that lack both a mate and territory. As the author put it, the sub roosts act as a “club” that improves the ability of non-breeding choughs to find a mate and gain territory.


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.

Brief Summary: These researchers developed a model which they used to predict roosting habits of Tree Swallows. The model integrated conspecific attraction and roost fidelity and attempted to measure the relative amount of each in regards to the swallow’s habits.

 Richner, Heinz, and Philipp Heeb. "Communal Life: Honest Signaling and the Recruitment Center Hypothesis." Behavioral Ecology 7.1 (1996): 115-18. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Brief Summary: This article seeks to replace the ICH hypothesis with the Recruitment Center Hypothesis. This hypothesis is based on individual selections and recruitment of specific birds to communal roosts.

Weatherhead, Patrick J. "Two Principal Strategies in Avian Communal Roosts." The American Naturalist 121.2 (1983): 237-43. JSTOR. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Brief Summary: This article provides another alternative hypothesis to ICH. For birds with the greater foraging abilities, communal roosting acts as sort of a selfish herd where these birds have better, more central roosting spots. For the younger, less able birds communal roosts give them foraging advantage along with some possible protection from predation.


Beauchamp, Guy. “The evolution of communal roosting in birds: origin and secondary losses.” Behavioral Ecology 10.6 (1999): 675–687.

Brief Summary: This article examines three main evolutionary benefits to communal roosting: reduction of thermoregulatory demands, protection from predation, and increased foraging capacity. It determines that evolutionarily the most likely cause for communal roosting is flocking leading to increased foraging capacity, although this is not true in all species. It also describes the loss of communal roosting in some species.

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.

Brief Summary: This article examines communal roosting in acorn woodpeckers with regard to the energetic benefits gained. It concludes that acorn woodpeckers gain a significant energetic gain by roosting communally in the winter.

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.

Brief Summary: This article studies communal roosting in butterflies, I’m not sure if we want to focus specifically on avian communal roosting, but since the Wikipedia article is “Communal Roosting I think we should make sure to not forget that other species roost. The study shows that decreased predation and NOT information sharing is the evolutionary benefit to communal roosting in vine-butterflies

Rhumke (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]