4.5 Article

Cache spacing patterns and reciprocal cache theft in New Zealand robins

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 1043-1049

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.07.014

关键词

competition; food hoarding; kleptoparasitism; New Zealand robin; petroica australis; pilferage; social dominance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We quantified cache spacing patterns, cache retrieval rates and rates of cache theft in New Zealand robins, Petroica australis. In a field experiment we presented wild birds with a superabundant supply of mealworms. Trials were conducted on competitively dominant males and subordinate females, both when birds were alone and when they were accompanied by their mate. We hypothesized that ( 1) dominant males would aggregate caches to facilitate their defence, whereas subordinate females would scatter their caches more widely to avoid their discovery by males, ( 2) sexual differences in cache spacing would be context dependent, or occur only when birds were in pairs, and ( 3) patterns in cache spacing would facilitate cache retrieval and reduce cache theft. Females cached food further from food sources than males when they occurred in pairs. However, both sexes cached at similar distances when they were alone. Regardless of social context, females created more cache sites than males, and both sexes created more cache sites when they were together. Cache theft was frequently observed. Female-made caches were retrieved at similar rates by both males and females whereas male-made caches were more likely to be stolen by females than retrieved by the males that made them. Therefore, the results showed no support for the hypothesis that cache spacing patterns reduce cache theft. We suggest that the apparently conflicting relations between cache spacing, recovery and theft are determined by a trade-off between winter survival tactics and mate provisioning. (C) 2007 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据