Journal Home > Volume 14 , Issue 4
Avian Research 2023, 14(4): 100139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100139
Research Article | Open Access | Issue | Published: 13 October 2023

Aviary measurements of dominance and affiliation between members of mixed-species birds flocks in southern China

Show Author's Information Jichong Chena,  Estelle Meauxa,b,  Caiyun Lia,  Aiwu Jianga( ),  Eben Goodalec( )
Guangxi Key Laboratory for Forest Ecology and Conservation, College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China
Division of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Department of Health and Environmental Science, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, 215123, China
Keywords:
Keystone species, Dominance hierarchy, Mixed-species animal groups, Sociality
Cite this article:
Chen J, Meaux E, Li C, et al. Aviary measurements of dominance and affiliation between members of mixed-species birds flocks in southern China. Avian Research, 2023, 14(4): 100139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100139
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

80

Views

5

Downloads

Citations

0

Crossref

0

WoS

1

Scopus

0

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

In mutualistic interactions, all parties are usually considered to benefit; yet there may be asymmetries in mutualisms where some partners/individuals benefit more than others. Such is thought to be the case in mixed-species flocks of birds, where following species are thought to benefit more than leading species, and leading species may not be able to escape the association if they are subordinate to other species. We measured dominance and affiliation patterns of a mixed-species flock system of southern China in an aviary where these variables could be measured in a standardized way. In eight wild-caught flocks, the leading species, David's Fulvetta (Alcippe davidi), was usually among the more subordinate flock members (ranking 9 of 13 species, with the the most dominant species ranked number one, and dominance measured by normalized David's scores). Dominance was strongly influenced by body mass, and not by bill length or the number of individuals. Female fulvettas in particular tended to be among the most subordinate individuals in the flock. There was evidence of a negative relationship between a species pair's affiliation, measured as the percentage of all observations in which these two species were found perching together, and their difference in ranking in the dominance hierarchy, particularly when some ground species, which are not likely to remain in flocks long term, were removed from the analysis. Species pairs that had more pronounced differences in their dominance rankings were less likely to be affiliated, which is consistent with the idea that subordinate species may avoid dominants. David's Fulvetta is a strong information provider, so other species are likely benefitted in this relationship. Our data suggest one reason that fulvettas stay in flocks is that they may be subordinate and therefore have little control over who associates with them.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Aviary measurements of dominance and affiliation between members of mixed-species birds flocks in southern China

Show Author's information Jichong Chena, Estelle Meauxa,b, Caiyun Lia, Aiwu Jianga( ), Eben Goodalec( )
Guangxi Key Laboratory for Forest Ecology and Conservation, College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China
Division of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Department of Health and Environmental Science, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, 215123, China

Abstract

In mutualistic interactions, all parties are usually considered to benefit; yet there may be asymmetries in mutualisms where some partners/individuals benefit more than others. Such is thought to be the case in mixed-species flocks of birds, where following species are thought to benefit more than leading species, and leading species may not be able to escape the association if they are subordinate to other species. We measured dominance and affiliation patterns of a mixed-species flock system of southern China in an aviary where these variables could be measured in a standardized way. In eight wild-caught flocks, the leading species, David's Fulvetta (Alcippe davidi), was usually among the more subordinate flock members (ranking 9 of 13 species, with the the most dominant species ranked number one, and dominance measured by normalized David's scores). Dominance was strongly influenced by body mass, and not by bill length or the number of individuals. Female fulvettas in particular tended to be among the most subordinate individuals in the flock. There was evidence of a negative relationship between a species pair's affiliation, measured as the percentage of all observations in which these two species were found perching together, and their difference in ranking in the dominance hierarchy, particularly when some ground species, which are not likely to remain in flocks long term, were removed from the analysis. Species pairs that had more pronounced differences in their dominance rankings were less likely to be affiliated, which is consistent with the idea that subordinate species may avoid dominants. David's Fulvetta is a strong information provider, so other species are likely benefitted in this relationship. Our data suggest one reason that fulvettas stay in flocks is that they may be subordinate and therefore have little control over who associates with them.

Keywords: Keystone species, Dominance hierarchy, Mixed-species animal groups, Sociality

References(58)

Benelli, G., Desneux, N., Romano, D., Conte, G., Messing, R.H., Canale, A., 2015. Contest experience enhances aggressive behaviour in a fly: when losers learn to win. Sci. Rep. 5, 9347.
DOI Google Scholar

Boucherie, P.H., Gallego-Abenza, M., Massen, J.J.M., Bugnyar, T., 2022. Dominance in a socially dynamic setting: hierarchical structure and conflict dynamics in ravens’ foraging groups. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 377, 20200446.
DOI Google Scholar

Bronstein, J., 2001. Exploitation of mutualism. Ecol. Lett. 4, 277–287.
DOI Google Scholar
Bronstein, J. (Ed.), 2015. Mutualism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Bruno, J.F., Stachowicz, J.J., Bertness, M.D., 2003. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 119–125.
DOI Google Scholar

Bshary, R., Grutter, A.S., 2005. Punishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism. Biol. Lett. 1, 396–399.
DOI Google Scholar

Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., 1984. The effects of relative numbers on aggressive interactions and foraging efficiency in gulls: the cost of being outnumbered. Bird Behav. 5, 81–89.
Google Scholar

Bush, J.M., Quinn, M.M., Balreira, E.C., Johnson, M.A., 2016. How do lizards determine dominance? Applying ranking algorithms to animal social behaviour. Anim. Behav. 118, 65–74.
DOI Google Scholar
Chase, I.D., Seitz, K., 2011. Self-structuring properties of dominance hierarchies: a new perspective. In: Huber, R., Bannasch, D.L., Brennan, P. (Eds.), Advances in Genetics. Academic Press, London, pp. 51–81.
DOI

Chase, I.D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D., Manfredonia, M., 2002. Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 5744–5749.
DOI Google Scholar

Chen, C.C., Hsieh, H., 2002. Composition and foraging behaviour of mixed-species flocks led by the grey-cheeked fulvetta in Fushan experimental forest, Taiwan. Ibis 144, 317–330.
DOI Google Scholar

Coppinger, B.A., Carlson, N.V., Freeberg, T.M., 2023. Mixed-species groups and the question of dominance in the social ecosystem. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 378, 20220097.
DOI Google Scholar
David, H.A., 1988. The Method of Paired Comparisons. C, Griffin, London.

de Vries, H., Stevens, J.M.G., Vervaecke, H., 2006. Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. Anim. Behav. 71, 585–592.
DOI Google Scholar

Dolby, A.S., Grubb Jr., T.C., 1998. Benefits to satellite members in mixed-species foraging groups: an experimental analysis. Anim. Behav. 56, 501–509.
DOI Google Scholar

Dugatkin, L.A., Reeve, H.K., 2014. Winning, losing, and reaching out. Behav. Ecol. 25, 675–679.
DOI Google Scholar

French, A.R., Smith, T.B., 2005. Importance of body size in determining dominance hierarchies among diverse tropical frugivores. Biotropica 37, 96–101.
DOI Google Scholar

Gil, M.A., Emberts, Z., Jones, H., St Mary, C.M., 2017. Social information on fear and food drives animal grouping and fitness. Am. Nat. 189, 227–241.
DOI Google Scholar

Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., 2010. The relationship between leadership and gregariousness in mixed-species bird flocks. J. Avian Biol. 41, 99–103.
DOI Google Scholar

Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R.D., Nieh, J.C., Ruxton, G.D., 2010. Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 354–361.
DOI Google Scholar
Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Ruxton, G.D., 2017. Mixed-Species Groups of Animals: Behavior, Community Structure, and Conservation. Academic Press, London.

Goodale, E., Ding, P., Liu, X., Martínez, A., Walters, M., Robinson, S.K., 2015. The structure of multi-species flocks and their role in the organization of forest bird communities, with special reference to China. Avian Res. 6, 14.
DOI Google Scholar

Goodale, E., Sridhar, H., Sieving, K.E., Bangal, P., Colorado, G.J., Farine, D.R., et al., 2020. Mixed company: a framework for understanding the composition and organization of mixed-species animal groups. Biol. Rev. 95, 889–910.
DOI Google Scholar

Hino, T., 1998. Mutualistic and commensal organization of avian mixed-species foraging flocks in a forest of western Madagascar. J. Avian Biol. 29, 17–24.
DOI Google Scholar

Hobson, E.A., 2020. Differences in social information are critical to understanding aggressive behavior in animal dominance hierarchies. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 33, 209–215.
DOI Google Scholar

Holekamp, K.E., Strauss, E.D., 2016. Aggression and dominance: an interdisciplinary overview. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 12, 44–51.
DOI Google Scholar

Hsu, Y.Y., Earley, R.L., Wolf, L.L., 2006. Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol. Rev. 81, 33–74.
DOI Google Scholar

Hutto, R.L., 1994. The composition and social organization of mixed-species flocks in a tropical deciduous forest in western Mexico. Condor 96, 105–118.
DOI Google Scholar
Janzen, D.H., 1985. The natural history of mutualisms. In: Bouche, D.H. (Ed.), The Biology of Mutualism: Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Jiang, A., 2007. The Study of Understory Birds in Nonggang Karst Forest. Master’s Thesis.. Guangxi University, Nanning, China.

Jiang, D., Sieving, K.E., Meaux, E., Goodale, E., 2020. Seasonal changes in mixed-species bird flocks and antipredator information. Ecol. Evol. 10, 5368–5382.
DOI Google Scholar

Krams, I.A., Krama, T., Freeberg, T.M., Krams, R., Sieving, K.E., 2020a. Attacks of songbirds in mixed-species flocks by Eurasian Sparrowhawks: strategies of predators and potential prey. J. Field Ornithol. 91, 367–374.
DOI Google Scholar

Krams, I.A., Luoto, S., Krama, T., Krams, R., Sieving, K., Trakimas, G., et al., 2020b. Egalitarian mixed-species bird groups enhance winter survival of subordinate group members but only in high-quality forests. Sci. Rep. 10, 4005.
DOI Google Scholar

Laskowski, K.L., Wolf, M., Bierbach, D., 2016. The making of winners (and losers): how early dominance interactions determine adult social structure in a clonal fish. Proc. R. Soc. A B 283, 20160183.
DOI Google Scholar

Lea, A.J., Learn, N.H., Theus, M.J., Altmann, J., Alberts, S.C., 2014. Complex sources of variance in female dominance rank in a nepotistic society. Anim. Behav. 94, 87–99.
DOI Google Scholar

Leighton, G.M., Lamour, D., Malcolm, K., Miller, E.T., 2022. Both morphological and behavioral traits predict interspecific social dominance in birds. J. Ornithol. 164, 163–169.
DOI Google Scholar

Majolo, B., Vizioli, A.D., Martinez-Inigo, L., Lehmann, J., 2020. Effect of group size and individual characteristics on intergroup encounters in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 41, 325–341.
DOI Google Scholar

Martin, P.R., Ghalambor, C.K., 2014. When David beats Goliath: the advantage of large size in interspecific aggressive contests declines over evolutionary time. PLoS One 9, e108741.
DOI Google Scholar

Miller, E.T., Bonter, D.N., Eldermire, C., Freeman, B.G., Greig, E.I., Harmon, L.J., et al., 2017. Fighting over food unites the birds of North America in a continental dominance hierarchy. Behav. Ecol. 28, 1454–1463.
DOI Google Scholar

Mills, S.C., Cote, I.M., 2010. Crime and punishment in a roaming cleanerfish. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 3617–3622.
DOI Google Scholar

Morse, D.H., 1977. Feeding behavior and predator avoidance in heterospecific groups. Bioscience 27, 332–339.
DOI Google Scholar

Pierce, V., Grubb Jr., T.C., 1981. Laboratory studies of foraging in four bird species of deciduous woodland. Auk 98, 307–320.
Google Scholar

Qin, M., Leng, W., Zhao, P., 2013. Evaluation and utilization of eco-tourism climate resources in Chongzuo City. J. Meteorol. Res. Appl. 34, 52–56 (in Chinese).
Google Scholar

Sanchez-Tojar, A., Schroeder, J., Farine, D.R., 2018. A practical guide for inferring reliable dominance hierarchies and estimating their uncertainty. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 594–608.
DOI Google Scholar

Shelley, E.L., Tanaka, M.Y.U., Ratnathicam, A.R., Blumstein, D.T., 2004. Can Lanchester’s laws help explain interspecific dominance in birds? Condor 106, 395–400.
DOI Google Scholar

Soons, J., Herrel, A., Genbrugge, A., Aerts, P., Podos, J., Adriaens, D., et al., 2010. Mechanical stress, fracture risk and beak evolution in Darwin’s ground finches (Geospiza). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 1093–1098.
DOI Google Scholar

Sridhar, H., Beauchamp, G., Shanker, K., 2009. Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. Anim. Behav. 78, 337–347.
DOI Google Scholar

Suhonen, J., 1993. Risk of predation and foraging sites of individuals in mixed-species tit flocks. Anim. Behav. 45, 1193–1198.
DOI Google Scholar

Sullivan, K.A., 1985. Selective alarm calling by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Auk 102, 184–187.
DOI Google Scholar

Terborgh, J., 1990. Mixed flocks and polyspecific associations, costs and benefits of mixed groups to birds and monkeys. Am. J. Primatol. 21, 87–100.
DOI Google Scholar

Waite, T.A., Grubb Jr., T.C., 1988. Copying of foraging locations in mixed-species flocks of temperate-deciduous woodland birds: an experimental study. Condor 90, 132–140.
DOI Google Scholar

Yasuda, C.I., Matsuo, K., Hasaba, Y., Wada, S., 2014. Hermit crab, Pagurus middendorffii, males avoid the escalation of contests with familiar winners. Anim. Behav. 96, 49–57.
DOI Google Scholar

Zamudio, K.R., Sinervo, B., 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilization as alternative male mating strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 14427–14432.
DOI Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., Han, R.C., Zhang, M., Huang, Z., Zou, F., 2013. Linking vegetation structure and bird organization: response of mixed-species bird flocks to forest succession in subtropical China. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 1965–1989.
DOI Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., Holyoak, M., Goodale, E., Liu, Z., Shen, Y., Liu, J., et al., 2020. Traitenvironment relationships differ between mixed-species flocking and nonflocking bird assemblages. Ecology 101, e03124.
DOI Google Scholar

Zhou, L., Peabotuwage, I., Gu, H., Jiang, D., Jiang, A., Zhang, M., et al., 2019. The response of mixed-species flocks to anthropogenic disturbance and elevational change in southwest China. Condor 121, duz028.
DOI Google Scholar

Zou, F., Chen, G., Yang, Q., Fellowes, J., 2011. Composition of mixed-species flocks and shifts in foraging location of flocking species on Hainan Island, China. Ibis 153, 269–278.
DOI Google Scholar

Zou, F., Chuan Lim, H., Marks, B.D., Moyle, R.G., Sheldon, F.H., 2007. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Grey-cheeked Fulvetta (Alcippe morrisonia) of China and Indochina: a case of remarkable genetic divergence in a “species”. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44, 165–174.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 26 June 2023
Revised: 29 August 2023
Accepted: 08 October 2023
Published: 13 October 2023
Issue date: December 2023

Copyright

© 2023 The Authors.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the Chongzuo Forestry Bureau for permission to catch the birds, and the Animal Experimental Ethical Inspection of Guangxi University for permission to keep the birds in captivity and conduct the experiments. We are grateful for the help of Shilong Liu, Tianlong Zhou, and Haijun Tan in the field and Wuyuan Pan with the aviary. Two anonymous reviewers provided constructive comments that improved the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Return