Research of aggressive behavior of blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) at watering place

Authors

  • Анна Олександрівна Маркова Educational and scientific centre «Institute of Biology» Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Volodymyrska str., 64/13, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5549-3848
  • Валентин Валентинович Серебряков Educational and scientific centre «Institute of Biology» Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Volodymyrska str., 64/13, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6897-1589

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-8025.2016.78979

Keywords:

behavior, interspecific and intraspecific aggression, Sylvia atricapilla, blackcap, watering place

Abstract

The aggressive behavior of blackcap was analyzed in nature, urban and intermediately type of territory in forest-steppe zone of Ukraine. Correlation of aggression with dynamic of arrival activity to watering please, behavioral acts and widespread species was found. Relationship of intraspecific and interspecific contacts was found. Rating of success for aggressive reactions in attack and defense, which is an indicator of energy justification of aggression, was established

Author Biographies

Анна Олександрівна Маркова, Educational and scientific centre «Institute of Biology» Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Volodymyrska str., 64/13, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601

Department of Zoology

Валентин Валентинович Серебряков, Educational and scientific centre «Institute of Biology» Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Volodymyrska str., 64/13, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601

Doctor of Sciences, Professor, Head of Department

Department of Zoology 

References

  1. 1. Umapathy, G., Kumar, A. (2000). The occurrence of arboreal mammals in the rain forest fragments in the Anamalai Hills, south India. Biological Conservation, 92 (3), 311–319. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(99)00097-x
  2. 2. Peiman, K. S., Robinson, B. W. (2010). Ecology and Evolution of Resource-Related Heterospecific Aggression. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85 (2), 133–158. doi: 10.1086/652374
  3. 3. Forsman, J. T., Thomson, R. L., Seppanen, J.-T. (2007). Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds. Behavioral Ecology, 18 (5), 888–894. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arm048
  4. 4. Reichert, M. S., Gerhardt, H. C. (2014). Behavioral strategies and signaling in interspecific aggressive interactions in gray tree frogs. Behavioral Ecology, 25 (3), 520–530. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru016
  5. 5. Tanner, C. J., Adler, F. R. (2009). To fight or not to fight: context-dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Animal Behaviour, 77 (2), 297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.016
  6. 6. Foltz, S. L., Ross, A. E., Laing, B. T., Rock, R. P., Battle, K. E., Moore, I. T. (2015). Get off my lawn: increased aggression in urban song sparrows is related to resource availability. Behavioral Ecology, 26 (6), 1548–1557. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv111
  7. 7. Hasegawa, M., Ligon, R. A., Giraudeau, M., Watanabe, M., McGraw, K. J. (2014). Urban and colorful male house finches are less aggressive. Behavioral Ecology, 25 (3), 641–649. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru034
  8. 8. Lehtonen, T. K., McCrary, J. K., Meyer, A. (2010). Territorial aggression can be sensitive to the status of heterospecific intruders. Behavioural Processes, 84 (2), 598–601. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.021
  9. 9. Ivanitskiy, V. V. (1982). Ethological aspects of relationship between close animal species. Zoological journal, 61 (10), 1461–1471.
  10. 10. Panov, E. N., Ivanitskiy, V. V. (1975). The interspecific territorial relations in the mixed population of Finsch's Wheatear Oenanthe finchi and pied wheatea O.pleschanka on the peninsula of Mangyshlak. Zoological journal, 54 (9), 1357–1370.
  11. 11. Ryabitsev, V. K. (1977). Results of research of the interspecific territorial relations of birds on the Southern Yamal. Zoological journal, 56 (2), 232–242.
  12. 12. Ivannitskiy, V. V. (1980). Interspesific relationship sympatric species heaters (Oenanthe, Turdidae, Passeriformes). The behavioral aspects of coexistence of similar species. Zoological journal, 59 (5), 739–749.
  13. 13. Mikami, O. K., Kawata, M. (2004). Does interspecific territoriality reflect the intensity of ecological interactions? A theoretical model for interspecific territoriality. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6, 765–775.
  14. 14. Grether, G. F., Losin, N., Anderson, C. N., Okamoto, K. (2009). The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biological Reviews, 84 (4), 617–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00089.x
  15. 15. Grether, G. F., Anderson, C. N., Drury, J. P., Kirschel, A. N. G., Losin, N., Okamoto, K., Peiman, K. S. (2013). The evolutionary consequences of interspecific aggression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1289 (1), 48–68. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12082
  16. 16. Dingemanse, N. J., Araya-Ajoy, Y. G. (2015). Interacting personalities: behavioural ecology meets quantitative genetics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30 (2), 88–97. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.002
  17. 17. Altmann, J. (1974). Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour, 49 (3), 227–266. doi: 10.1163/156853974x00534
  18. 18. Popov, S. V., Ilchenko, O. G. (2008). Methodical recommendations about ethological supervision over mammals in slavery. Moscow: The Moscow zoo, 165.
  19. 19. Panov, E. N. (1983). Methodological problems in studying of communication and social behavior of animals. Problemyi etologii nazemnyih pozvonochnyih. The results of science and technology, Zoology of vertebrate, VINITI, 12, 5–70.
  20. 20. Sushma, H. S. (2006). Resource partitioning and interspecific interactions among sympatric rain forest arboreal mammals of the Western Ghats, India. Behavioral Ecology, 17 (3), 479–490. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arj058
  21. 21. Fesenko, G. V., Bokotey, A. A. (2002). Ukraine Fauna Birds: A field key. Kyiv, 208.
  22. 22. Mönkkönen, M., Forsman, J. T. (2002). Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithological Science, 1 (1), 41–51. doi: 10.2326/osj.1.41
  23. 23. Seppänen, J.-T., Forsman, J. T., Mönkkönen, M., Thomson, R. L. (2007). Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology, 88 (7), 1622–1633. doi: 10.1890/06-1757.1
  24. 24. Eason, P., Hannon, S. J. (1994). New birds on the block: new neighbors increase defensive costs for territorial male willow ptarmigan. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 34 (6), 419–426. doi: 10.1007/bf00167333
  25. 25. Briefer, E., Rybak, F., Aubin, T. (2008). When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Animal Behaviour, 76 (4), 1319–1325. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.06.017
  26. 26. Temeles, E. J. (1994). The role of neighbors in territorial systems—when are they dear enemies. Animal Behaviour, 47 (2), 339–350. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1047
  27. 27. Dingemanse, N. J. (2004). The relation between dominance and exploratory behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behavioral Ecology, 15 (6), 1023–1030. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arh115
  28. 28. Colléter, M., Brown, C. (2011). Personality traits predict hierarchy rank in male rainbowfish social groups. Animal Behaviour, 81 (6), 1231–1237. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.011
  29. 29. Hewitt, S. E., Macdonald, D. W., Dugdale, H. L. (2009). Context-dependent linear dominance hierarchies in social groups of European badgers, Meles meles. Animal Behaviour, 77 (1), 161–169. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.09.022
  30. 30. Weiss, B. M., Kotrschal, K., Foerster, K. (2011). A longitudinal study of dominance and aggression in greylag geese (Anser anser). Behavioral Ecology, 22 (3), 616–624. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr020
  31. 1. Umapathy, G., Kumar, A. (2000). The occurrence of arboreal mammals in the rain forest fragments in the Anamalai Hills, south India. Biological Conservation, 92 (3), 311–319. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(99)00097-x
  32. 2. Peiman, K. S., Robinson, B. W. (2010). Ecology and Evolution of Resource-Related Heterospecific Aggression. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85 (2), 133–158. doi: 10.1086/652374
  33. 3. Forsman, J. T., Thomson, R. L., Seppanen, J.-T. (2007). Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds. Behavioral Ecology, 18 (5), 888–894. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arm048
  34. 4. Reichert, M. S., Gerhardt, H. C. (2014). Behavioral strategies and signaling in interspecific aggressive interactions in gray tree frogs. Behavioral Ecology, 25 (3), 520–530. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru016
  35. 5. Tanner, C. J., Adler, F. R. (2009). To fight or not to fight: context-dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Animal Behaviour, 77 (2), 297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.016
  36. 6. Foltz, S. L., Ross, A. E., Laing, B. T., Rock, R. P., Battle, K. E., Moore, I. T. (2015). Get off my lawn: increased aggression in urban song sparrows is related to resource availability. Behavioral Ecology, 26 (6), 1548–1557. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv111
  37. 7. Hasegawa, M., Ligon, R. A., Giraudeau, M., Watanabe, M., McGraw, K. J. (2014). Urban and colorful male house finches are less aggressive. Behavioral Ecology, 25 (3), 641–649. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru034
  38. 8. Lehtonen, T. K., McCrary, J. K., Meyer, A. (2010). Territorial aggression can be sensitive to the status of heterospecific intruders. Behavioural Processes, 84 (2), 598–601. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.021
  39. 9. Ivanitskiy, V.V. (1982). Ethological aspects of relationship between close animal species. Zoological journal, 61 (10), 1461–1471.
  40. 10. Panov, E. N., Ivanitskiy, V. V. (1975). The interspecific territorial relations in the mixed population of Finsch's Wheatear Oenanthe finchi and pied wheatea O.pleschanka on the peninsula of Mangyshlak. Zoological journal, 54 (9), 1357–1370.
  41. 11. Ryabitsev, V.K. (1977). Results of research of the interspecific territorial relations of birds on the Southern Yamal. Zoological journal, 56 (2), 232–242.
  42. 12. Ivannitskiy, V.V. (1980). Interspesific relationship sympatric species heaters (Oenanthe, Turdidae, Passeriformes). The behavioral aspects of coexistence of similar species. Zoological journal, 59 (5), 739–749.
  43. 13. Mikami, O. K., Kawata, M. (2004). Does interspecific territoriality reflect the intensity of ecological interactions? A theoretical model for interspecific territoriality. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6, 765–775.
  44. 14. Grether, G. F., Losin, N., Anderson, C. N., Okamoto, K. (2009). The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biological Reviews, 84 (4), 617–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00089.x
  45. 15. Grether, G. F., Anderson, C. N., Drury, J. P., Kirschel, A. N. G., Losin, N., Okamoto, K., Peiman, K. S. (2013). The evolutionary consequences of interspecific aggression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1289 (1), 48–68. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12082
  46. 16. Dingemanse, N. J., Araya-Ajoy, Y. G. (2015). Interacting personalities: behavioural ecology meets quantitative genetics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30 (2), 88–97. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.002
  47. 17. Altmann, J. (1974). Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour, 49 (3), 227–266. doi: 10.1163/156853974x00534
  48. 18. Popov, S.V., Ilchenko, O.G. (2008). Methodical recommendations about ethological supervision over mammals in slavery. Moscow: The Moscow zoo, 165.
  49. 19. Panov, E.N. (1983). Methodological problems in studying of communication and social behavior of animals. Problemyi etologii nazemnyih pozvonochnyih. The results of science and technology, Zoology of vertebrate, VINITI, 12, 5–70.
  50. 20. Sushma, H. S. (2006). Resource partitioning and interspecific interactions among sympatric rain forest arboreal mammals of the Western Ghats, India. Behavioral Ecology, 17 (3), 479–490. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arj058
  51. 21. Fesenko, G. V., Bokotey, A. A. (2002). Ukraine Fauna Birds: A field key. Kyiv, 208.
  52. 22. Mönkkönen, M., Forsman, J. T. (2002). Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithological Science, 1 (1), 41–51. doi: 10.2326/osj.1.41
  53. 23. Seppänen, J.-T., Forsman, J. T., Mönkkönen, M., Thomson, R. L. (2007). Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology, 88 (7), 1622–1633. doi: 10.1890/06-1757.1
  54. 24. Eason, P., Hannon, S. J. (1994). New birds on the block: new neighbors increase defensive costs for territorial male willow ptarmigan. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 34 (6), 419–426. doi: 10.1007/bf00167333
  55. 25. Briefer, E., Rybak, F., Aubin, T. (2008). When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Animal Behaviour, 76 (4), 1319–1325. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.06.017
  56. 26. Temeles, E. J. (1994). The role of neighbors in territorial systems—when are they dear enemies. Animal Behaviour, 47 (2), 339–350. dio: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1047
  57. 27. Dingemanse, N. J. (2004). The relation between dominance and exploratory behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behavioral Ecology, 15 (6), 1023–1030. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arh115
  58. 28. Colléter, M., Brown, C. (2011). Personality traits predict hierarchy rank in male rainbowfish social groups. Animal Behaviour, 81 (6), 1231–1237. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.011
  59. 29. Hewitt, S. E., Macdonald, D. W., Dugdale, H. L. (2009). Context-dependent linear dominance hierarchies in social groups of European badgers, Meles meles. Animal Behaviour, 77 (1), 161–169. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.09.022
  60. 30. Weiss, B. M., Kotrschal, K., Foerster, K. (2011). A longitudinal study of dominance and aggression in greylag geese (Anser anser). Behavioral Ecology, 22 (3), 616–624. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr020

Downloads

Published

2016-10-31

How to Cite

Маркова, А. О., & Серебряков, В. В. (2016). Research of aggressive behavior of blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) at watering place. ScienceRise: Biological Science, (2 (2), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-8025.2016.78979

Issue

No. 2 (2) (2016)

Section

Biological Sciences

License

Copyright (c) 2016 Анна Олександрівна Маркова, Валентин Валентинович Серебряков

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our journal abides by the Creative Commons CC BY copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.

Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:

1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.

 2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.