Scholarlink

<p>Experiments in Finland and Latvia suggest that a long-distant migrant, the pied flycatcher <i>Ficedula hypoleuca</i>, uses social information from the nest site choice of a resident bird, the great tit <i>Parus major</i>, when choosing a nest cavity. However, we failed to replicate the copying of the external patterning on nest boxes when we conducted experiments in Norway (Slagsvold T, Wiebe KL (2024) Birds do not use social learning of landmarks to locate favorable nest sites. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 78:71). Hämäläinen et al. (commentary, see this issue) suggest that different costs and benefits of social learning between study areas explain divergent results but we do not understand why copying/avoiding a nest cavity based on minor difference in an external marking should be important in any flycatcher population. A necessary assumption for the social learning hypothesis is that prospecting birds are able to distinguish and use the markings painted on the nest boxes. This prediction failed when we erected two nest boxes in the same tree and thus when the painted markings were easy to compare. Hämäläinen et al. suggest that our method was invalid because we had stressed the birds by blocking the nest box in which the birds had started to build a nest. However, this objection is countered both by ecological and empirical arguments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On heterospecific learning in birds – response to Hämäläinen et al.

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月12日

查看全文
  • Tore Slagsvold,
  • Karen L. Wiebe

摘要

Experiments in Finland and Latvia suggest that a long-distant migrant, the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca, uses social information from the nest site choice of a resident bird, the great tit Parus major, when choosing a nest cavity. However, we failed to replicate the copying of the external patterning on nest boxes when we conducted experiments in Norway (Slagsvold T, Wiebe KL (2024) Birds do not use social learning of landmarks to locate favorable nest sites. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 78:71). Hämäläinen et al. (commentary, see this issue) suggest that different costs and benefits of social learning between study areas explain divergent results but we do not understand why copying/avoiding a nest cavity based on minor difference in an external marking should be important in any flycatcher population. A necessary assumption for the social learning hypothesis is that prospecting birds are able to distinguish and use the markings painted on the nest boxes. This prediction failed when we erected two nest boxes in the same tree and thus when the painted markings were easy to compare. Hämäläinen et al. suggest that our method was invalid because we had stressed the birds by blocking the nest box in which the birds had started to build a nest. However, this objection is countered both by ecological and empirical arguments.