4.7 Article

Experimental evidence that adult antipredator behaviour is heritable and not influenced by behavioural copying in a wild bird

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 279, Issue 1732, Pages 1380-1388

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1789

Keywords

Tachymarptis melba; behavioural syndromes; cross-fostering experiment; personality; antipredator behaviour

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PP00A-109009, 31003A_124988]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_124988] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Knowledge of the relative importance of genetics and behavioural copying is crucial to appraise the evolvability of behavioural consistencies. Yet, genetic and non-genetic factors are often deeply intertwined, and experiments are required to address this issue. We investigated the sources of variation of adult anti-predator behaviour in the Alpine swift (Apus melba) by making use of long-term behavioural observations on parents and cross-fostered offspring. By applying an 'animal model' approach to observational data, we show that antipredator behaviour of adult Alpine swifts was significantly repeatable over lifetime (r = 0.273) and heritable (h(2) = 0.146). Regression models also show that antipredator behaviours differed between colonies and sexes (females were more tame), and varied with the hour and year of capture. By applying a parent-offspring regression approach to 59 offspring that were exchanged as eggs or hatchlings between pairs of nests, we demonstrate that offspring behaved like their biological parents rather than like their foster parents when they were adults themselves. Those findings provide strong evidence that antipredator behaviour of adult Alpine swifts is shaped by genetics and/or pre-hatching maternal effects taking place at conception but not by behavioural copying.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available