4.1 Article

Risk assessment by crow phenotypes in a hybrid zone

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 309-316

Publisher

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s10164-007-0062-z

Keywords

corvidae; escape theory; fearfulness; flight-initiation distance; hybridization; predation; risk assessment

Funding

  1. University of Leipzig

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Predation is one of the most selective forces in evolution and, thus, predation may select against hybrids in narrow hybrid zones. It may be possible that parental phenotypes and hybrids differ in their responses towards predators or humans. As predation is difficult to observe I used flight-initiation distance (FID) as a metric of risk assessment. FID is a measurable outcome of the trade-off between fleeing and remaining. Here, I tested whether hybrid and parent crow phenotypes (Corvus corone, Corvus cornix) from the hybrid zone in Eastern Germany differ in their FID. Further, I measured many environmental and social variables to control statistically for their influence on FID. I sampled 154 individuals (53 hooded crows, 54 carrion crows, and 48 hybrids) in the hybrid zone in eastern Germany. I calculated a general linear model using a stepwise backward procedure to establish a minimum model containing only significant variables that explained FID in crows. The variable phenotype (hooded, carrion, hybrid) was then added to the model. There were no differences in FID between hybrids and both parental phenotypes types, suggesting similar risk assessment. This suggests that hybrids may behave similarly in their decision to flee as their parent phenotypes, which, in turn, provides no evidence for a selective disadvantage. An additional analysis focusing on pure phenotypic flocks showed that hybrids in pure hybrid flocks had a lower FID than both parental species in pure flocks. This suggests that hybrids in pure hybrid flocks may be at a disadvantage.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available