4.2 Article

Individual vigilance profiles in flocks of House Sparrows (Passer domesticus)

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 9, Pages 1016-1023

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2017-0301

Keywords

bib size; flock size; House Sparrow; individual variation; Passer domesticus; plasticity; vigilance

Categories

Funding

  1. Fonds du centennaire grant from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Montreal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individual vigilance against threats typically decreases with group size. However, group size often explains a small amount of variation in vigilance, suggesting that other factors such as individual differences might contribute. For instance, individuals could maintain different vigilance levels overall and also respond differently to variation in group size. We investigated individual variation in vigilance and its patterns of plasticity in flocks of House Sparrows (Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)). We carried out observations at one provisioned site and used multiple observations of the same individuals (n = 14) in flocks of different sizes over two consecutive months. The typical decline in vigilance with flock size occurred at the population level. Controlling for food density, flock size, time of year, and sex, we documented consistent individual differences in various measurements of vigilance. Plasticity of vigilance adjustments to variation in flock size occurred for the frequency of high vigilance postures. Male House Sparrows with larger bibs, which signal higher dominance status, tended to spend less time vigilant and obtained food at a higher rate, supporting a state-dependent explanation for the origin of individual vigilance profiles. Individual differences can contribute to explaining the large scatter in the relationship between vigilance and group size in many species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available