Synchronized vigilance while feeding in common eider brood-rearing coalitions
The timing of vigilance and feeding in groups determines the efficiency of shared predator detection and foraging success. Behavioral monitoring of conspecifics remains controversial although synchronization is commonly observed and need not compromise predator detection. The within-group timing of vigilance shows inconsistent associations with group size, and whether nearby nongroup conspecifics affect this timing is poorly understood. Finally, it is unknown whether socially breeding parents time their activities to each other based on offspring predation risk. We studied diving common eider females (Somateria mollissima) in brood-rearing coalitions subject to gull predation of ducklings. The within-group timing of vigilance was determined by comparing observed collective vigilance, the proportion of time during which at least 1 adult group member is vigilant, with that expected assuming independent timing of activities. We determined the predictors of within-group timing of vigilance, observed collective vigilance, individual vigilance, frequency of nearby nongroup females (group outsiders), and incidence of alarm reactions. Vigilance was synchronized regardless of brood composition. Synchronization and observed collective vigilance increased with female group size, whereas synchronization decreased with increasing ratios of ducklings to tending females. Individual vigilance increased in the presence of gull alarms. Within-group timing of activities was unrelated to the presence of group outsiders, but broods with fewer ducklings (less predation dilution) were more often associated with group outsiders, the frequency of which was negatively associated with the incidence of gull alarms. Increased offspring predation risk thus reduces overlapping vigilance among adult group members and enhances attraction to nearby nongroup conspecifics. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 22 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:2:p:378-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.