bibliography: Markovа, A. O. 2018. The aspects of aggressive interaction of three related species of Paridae family with other bird species at the local watering place. Geo&Bio. Vol. 16: 89-98.

doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/gb.2018.16.089

author(s): A. O. Markovа https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5549-3848

affiliation: I. I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, NAS of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) address:A. O. Markovа; I. I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, NAS of Ukraine; B. Khmelnytsky St. 15, Kyiv 01601, Ukraine; e-mail: anna-markovka@i.ua

title: The aspects of aggressive interaction of three related species of Paridae family with other bird species at the local watering place

pdf:   pdf

summary: We explored interspecific and intraspecific aggressive contacts of three species of Paridae birds: Great Tit (Parus major), Blue Tit (P. caeruleus) and Marsh Tit (P. palustris) at the local watering place during breeding season by ethological methods of total observation and continuous logging. We recorded for which of 27 bird species present at the local watering place tits show aggression, and for which not. We considered the relationship of interspecific and intraspecific contacts among which non-aggressive and interspecific contacts are dominant. The percentage of interspecific contacts was slightly higher than intraspecific among all aggressive interactions in P. caeruleus, but the apparently opposite was found in P. palustris. In P. major it differed among study sites. The frequency of aggressive interactions in the studied species is rather small, but its index is always higher in intraspecific conflicts than in interspecific. We checked the statistical significance of differences of displaying interspecific and intraspecific aggression in different territories, and actually between these types of aggression at each location. The interspecific and intraspecific ratio of aggression for P. caeruleus and P. major is the same in most areas, but is always different in P. palustris. We calculated the success of the aggression reaction in defense and attack for the tits to all other species and estimated its aspects for the study sites. Keywords:Paridae, behavior, interspecific and intraspecific aggression, watering place.

References

Briefer, E., F. Rybak, T. Aubin. 2008. When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Anim. Behav., 76: 1319–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.06.017

Colleter, M., C. Brown. 2011. Personality traits predict hierarchy rank in male rainbowfish social groups. Anim. Behav., 81 (6): 1231–1237.

Dingemanse, N. J., P. de Goede. 2004. The relation between dominance and exploratory behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behavioral Ecology,15 (6):1023–1030. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh115

Eason, P., S. J. Hannon. 1994. New birds on the block — new neighbors increase defensive costs for territorial-male Willow Ptarmigan. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 34: 419–426.

Ekman, J. B, C. E. H. Askenmo. 1984. Social rank and habitat use in willow tit groups. Anim. Behav.,32 (2): 508–514.

Foltz, S. L., A. E. Ross, B. T. Laing. 2015. Get off my lawn: increased aggression in urban song sparrows is related to resource availability. Behavioral Ecology,25: 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv111

Forsman, J. T., R. L. Thomson, J. T. Seppänen. 2007. Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds. Behavioral Ecology,18 (5): 888–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm048

Grether, G. F., C. N. Anderson, J. P. Drury, A. N. Kirschel, N. Losin, K. Okamoto, K. S. Peiman. 2013. The evolutionary consequences of interspecific aggression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1289: 48–68.

Grether, G. F., N. Losin, C. N. Anderson, K. Okamoto. 2009. The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biological Reviews,84: 617–635.

Hewitt, S. E., D. W. Macdonald, H. L. Dugdale. 2009. Context-dependent linear dominance hierarchies in social groups of European badgers, Melesmeles. Anim. Behav., 77 (1): 161–169.

Ivanitskiy, V. V. 1982. Ethological aspects of relationship between close animal species. Zoological journal, 61 (10): 1461–1471. (In Russian)

Ivannitskiy, V. V. 1980. Interspesific relationship sympatric species heaters (Oenanthe, Turdidae, Passeriformes). The behavioral aspects of coexistence of similar species. Zoological journal, 59 (5): 739–749. (In Russian)

Kapitonova, L.V., N. A.Formozov, V. V.Fedorov, A. B. Kerimov, D.S.Selivanova. 2012. Peculiarities of behavior and ecology of the Great tit Parus major Linneus, 1758 and Japanese tit P. minor Temmink et Schlegel, 1848 as possible factors of maintaining the stability of species-specific phenotypes in the area of sympatry and local hybridization in the Amur Region. Far East. J. Orn., 3: 37–46. (In Russian)

Markova, A. 2016. Interspecific and intraspecific aggression of Collared Flycatcher (Ficedulaalbicollis) and Spotted Flycatchers (Muscicapastriata). Odesa National University Herald. Biology. ONU. Odesa, 21 (2): 97–108. (In Ukrainian)

Martin, P. R., T. E. Martin. 2001. Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with wood warblers. Ecology, 82: 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0189:EAFCOS]2.0.CO;2

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

Panov, E. N. 1978. Mechanisms of communications in birds. Moscow: Science, 1–304. (In Russian)

Panov, E. N., V. V. Ivanitskiy. 1975. The interspecific territorial relations in the mixed population of Finsch's WheatearOenanthefinchi and pied wheateaO. pleschanka on the peninsula of Mangyshlak.Zoological journal,54 (9): 1357–1370. (In Russian)

Panov, E. N., V. V. Ivanitskiy. 1979. Spatial relationship of four types of shrikes in the Southern Turkmenistan. Zoological journal,58 (10): 1518–1535. (In Russian)

Peiman, K. S., B. W. Robinson. 2010. Ecology and evolution of resource-related heterospecific aggression. Quarterly Review of Biology, 85: 133–158.

Popov, S. V., O. G. Ilchenko. 2008. Methodical recommendations about ethological supervision over mammals in slavery. Moscow, Moscow Zoo, 1–165. (In Russian)

Reichert, M. S., H. C. Gerhardt. 2014. Behavioral strategies and signaling in interspecific aggressive interactions in gray tree frogs. Behavioral Ecology, 25 (3): 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru016

Rosell, F., G. Gundersen, J. F. Le Galliard. 2008. Territory ownership and familiarity status affect how much male root voles (Microtus oeconomus) invest in territory defence. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 62: 1559–1568.

Ryabitsev, V. K. 1977. Results of research of the interspecific territorial relations of birds on the Southern Yamal. Zoological journal,56 (2): 232–242. (In Russian)

Sasvari, L. 1992. Great tits benefit from feeding in mixed-species flocks: a field experiment. Anim. Behav., 43 (2): 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80224-6

Tanner, C. J., F. R. Adler. 2009. To fight or not to fight: context-dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Anim. Behav., 77: 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.016

Temeles, E. J. 1994. The role of neighbors in territorial systems — when are they dear enemies. Anim. Behav., 47: 339–350.

Valcu, M., B. Kempanaers. 2008. Causes and consequences of breeding dispersal and divorce in a blue tit, Cyanistescaeruleus, population. Anim. Behav., 75 (6): 1949–1963.

Zagorodniuk, I. 2007. Conflictthroughcoincidenceofnichesinsiblingspecies: estimationusingHutchinsonianratio. Sci. Bull. UzhgorodUniv. SeriesBiology,20: 5–13.(In Ukrainian)

Zagorodniuk, I. 2008. Mammaldiversityandspeciesrichnessofguilds. Sci. Bull. UzhgorodUniv. Series Biology, 24: 11–23. (In Ukrainian)