Volume 15 Issue 1
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Study area and methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References
Related Articles
Austin Dotta, Batur Yaman, Alex Van Huynh. 2024: No evidence of predator odor avoidance in a North American bird community. Avian Research, 15(1): 100155. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100155
Citation: Austin Dotta, Batur Yaman, Alex Van Huynh. 2024: No evidence of predator odor avoidance in a North American bird community. Avian Research, 15(1): 100155. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100155
shu

No evidence of predator odor avoidance in a North American bird community

  • Department of Biology, DeSales University, 2755 Station Avenue, Center Valley, PA, USA

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    E-mail address: alex.huynh@desales.edu (A. Huynh)

  • Received Date: 17 Jul 2023
  • Rev Recd Date: 18 Dec 2023
  • Accepted Date: 19 Dec 2023
  • Available Online: 11 Apr 2024
  • Publish Date: 27 Dec 2023
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract

  • Recent advances in our understanding of avian chemical communication have highlighted the importance of olfaction in many aspects of avian life. Prior studies investigating predator avoidance behaviors in response to predator odor cues have produced mixed results across species and contexts. Here we assess if a community of birds in eastern Pennsylvania displays avoidance behaviors towards predator odor cues in a natural foraging setting. We use clay caterpillars to measure foraging activity by birds in the presence of predator (bobcat) urine, non-predator (rabbit) urine, and water controls in two different environmental contexts (field vs. forest). Although we detected a weak trend for birds to forage less at predator urine-treated sites, we found no significant difference in avian foraging between the site types. We did find that foraging rates between environmental contexts changed significantly over the course of the experiment, with forest sites showing decreasing foraging rates and field sites showing increasing foraging rates. Our results reinforce the published literature that avoidance of predator odors by birds may not be ubiquitous across contexts and species.

    • FullText(HTML)

  • The Scaly-sided Merganser (Mergus squamatus, Plate Ⅰ) is recognized as a globally threatened waterfowl and is among the rarest sea ducks in the Palaearctic realm. Since its small and declining population is suffering from habitat loss, illegal hunting and disturbance, this species is included in the EN (Endangered) category of the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2001, 2004). It is listed in the first rank category of the List of the Protected Wildlife of National Importance in China (China Wildlife Conservation Association, 1990), as well as in the category of rare birds in Russia and Korea. It is estimated that the global population size of the Scaly-sided Merganser is between 2400–4500 individuals. They breed mainly in far eastern Russia and in the northeast of China and winter in the southern China and Korea (Hughes and Bocharnikov, 1992; Hughes and Hunter, 1994; Kolomiitsev, 1995; BirdLife International, 2001; He et al., 2002; Shokhrin and Solovieva, 2003). The Changbai Mountain range is a very important and a major breeding ground of this bird in China. Given the lack of continuous studies on the breeding population of the Scaly-sided Merganser in the Changbai Mountain range after the 1990s, the distribution and current status of this species is not well known in this area. With the guidance of methodology from Drs. Solovieva and Hughes, we made continuous and repeated surveys for the breeding population of the Scaly-sided Merganser in the Changbai Mountain range during the spring and summer of both 2008 and 2009. Besides the breeding densities, this study provided the sex-age structure and brood size of this species in the Changbai Mountain range.

      Plate Ⅰ.  Scaly-sided Merganser (Mergus squamatus). Photos by Peiqi Liu on October 2009 (a), June 2008 (b) and October 2009 (c) at Fusong County, Jilin Province, China.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Our study area covers mountain rivers between coordinates 41–44°N and 125–129°E. A total of 1553 km, 17 stretches in four different river systems of the Tumenjiang, Songhuajiang, Yalujiang and Mudanjiang rivers, were repeatedly surveyed during 2008 and 2009 (Fig. 1). In order to decrease the error in the surveys, we randomly selected stretches longer than 60 km and kept the survey distance on each stretch as long as we could, but always more than 30 km. The first 30 km from the source of each river were not surveyed, because these represent unsuitable habitats for the Scaly-sided Merganser (Kolomiytsev, 1990; Shokhrin and Solovieva, 2003; Fu and Chen, 2006). Seven stretches were surveyed both in 2008 and 2009. The breeding survey started in the middle of April, soon after the river ice cover broke up when the Scaly-sided Mergansers just arrived at their breeding habitats in the spring, while the brood survey was conducted during the middle of July and the middle of August when most ducklings had hatched but before they got fully fledged. During our surveys, only the individuals left behind the surveyors were counted. We counted the numbers of breeding pairs, trios, single males, single females, broods, brood-rearing females and flocks of this bird. We counted single males as breeding pairs since the coupled females might be laying eggs in their nests. We judged single females as breeding pairs only when single males were not found within the nearest 3 km. Since trios (one male with two females) are common in the breeding season, we counted trios also as breeding pairs (Solovieva et al., 2006). The densities of breeding pairs, broods and individuals are expressed as the number of breeding pairs/broods/individuals (inds) per km of river ± 1 SD respectively.

    Figure  1.  Study area and river stretches surveyed in 2008 and 2009
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Densities

    The densities of breeding pairs, broods and individuals of the Scaly-sided Merganser along each river surveyed in the Changbai Mountain range during 2008 and 2009 are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The total densities of breeding pairs were 0.26 ± 0.30 pairs per km, for broods 0.14 ± 0.14 per km and 0.75 ± 0.88 individuals per km at all the rivers over both years.

    Table  1.  Breeding pairs and individual densities of the Scaly-sided Merganser in the Changbai Mountain range in the spring of 2008 and 2009
    River Survey distance (km) Number of individuals Pair density (pairs·km–1) Bird density (spring, inds·km–1) Total density over both years
    2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Pair density (pairs·km–1) Bird density (inds·km–1)
    Manjiang 34 51 25 47 0.353 0.353 0.735 0.922 0.353 0.829
    Yalujiang_Changbai_ Linjiang 32 270 3 7 0.094 0.007 0.094 0.026 0.051 0.060
    Hunjiang_Upper − 34 − 0 − 0.000 − 0.000 0 0
    Hunjiang_Lower − 29 − 2 − 0.000 − 0.069 0 0.069
    Yalujiang_Ji'an − 40 − 2 − 0.025 − 0.050 0.025 0.050
    Toudaosonghuajiang 38 19 87 51 0.711 0.526 2.289 2.684 0.619 2.487
    Erdaosonghuajiang 29 29 8 10 0.103 0.172 0.276 0.345 0.138 0.311
    Fuerhe 33 36 75 84 1.030 0.806 2.273 2.333 0.918 2.303
    Songjiang 26 26 33 1 0.538 0.000 1.269 0.038 0.538 0.654
    Erdaobaihe − 12 − 6 − 0.250 − 0.500 0.250 0.500
    Hongqihe − 32 − 3 − 0.063 − 0.094 0.063 0.094
    Xilinhe − 27 − 12 − 0.111 − 0.444 0.111 0.444
    Songjianghe 29.5 34 31 26 0.305 0.382 1.051 0.765 0.344 0.908
    Mudanjiang 21 − 4 − 0 − 0.190 − 0 0.190
    Zhuerduohe 26 − 0 − 0 − 0 − 0 0
    Total/Mean 268.5 639 266 251 0.35 0.21 0.91 0.64 0.26 0.75
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  2.  Scaly-sided Merganser brood densities in the Changbai Mountain range during the summer of 2008 and 2009
    River Survey distance (km) Number of individuals Number of broods Brood density (broods·km–1) Total brood density over both years (broods·km–1)
    2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
    Manjiang 30 51 98 150 13 19 0.433 0.373 0.403
    Yalujiang _Changbai_Linjiang 32 − 0 − 0 − 0 − 0
    Yalujiang_Ji'an − 40 − 0 − 0 − 0 0
    Hunjiang_Lower − 29 − 0 − 0 − 0 0
    Hongqihe − 32 − 11 − 1 − 0.031 0.031
    Toudaosonghuajiang 38 − 13 − 2 − 0.053 − 0.053
    Erdaosonghuajiang 29 29 12 15 2 2 0.069 0.069 0.069
    Fuerhe 47 36 105 106 13 12 0.277 0.333 0.305
    Songjiang 26 − 4 − 1 − 0.038 − 0.038
    Erdaobaihe − 12 − 0 − 0 − − 0
    Xilinhe 30 27 42 32 5 4 0.167 0.148 0.158
    Songjianghe 40 34 171 78 19 11 0.475 0.324 0.400
    Mudanjiang 21 − 0 − 0 − 0 − 0
    Gudonghe 37 − 0 − 0 − 0 − 0
    Zhuerduohe 26 − 0 − 0 − 0 − 0
    Total/Mean 356 290 445 392 55 49 0.140 0.140 0.140
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Sex-age structure

    During the spring surveys, all the flocked birds were counted as sub-adults or non-breeding individuals. In total 127 individuals and 19 flocks were counted in the spring surveys over both years. The proportion of flocked birds was 24.56%. We counted a total of 189 breeding pairs (102 in 2008 and 87 in 2009) over both years, including 26 trios (15 in 2008 and 11 in 2009). The proportion of trios to all the breeding pairs was 13.76%. A total of 59 sub-adult males and 167 adult males were counted over both years. The proportion of sub-adult males to all males was 26.11%. In the spring surveys, we counted a total of 230 males and 268 females. The sex ratio was 1:1.17.

    Brood size and numbers

    We counted a total of 49 and 39 brood clusters in the summer surveys in 2008 and 2009. These brood clusters included 6 amalgamated broods (2 in 2008 and 4 in 2009). Brood amalgamation is common in the Scaly-sided Merganser in the Changbai mountains. They are often formed in some habitats with high brood densities. Some broods become amalgamated or had already combined one or two days after they left their nests, through the competition between brood rearing hens. The amalgamated brood size varies considerably, but usually ranges from 20 to 40. We once recorded an amalgamated brood with 44 ducklings in 2008. According to a report of the largest clutches of this bird (Yelsukov, 1994), as well as a total 16 eggs once recorded in a natural nest of the Scaly-sided Merganser by us in 2007, we regarded those brood clusters with more than 16 (not including the 16) ducklings as amalgamated broods. The normal brood size had an average of 7.83 ± 2.92 ducklings in 2008 and 7.49 ± 2.98 in 2009; no significant difference was found in brood size between 2008 and 2009 (t80= 0.60). Estimation that how many broods an amalgamated brood was composed of was made by dividing the number of ducklings of an amalgamated brood by the average brood size of the same year. In this way, we estimated that the 2 amalgamated broods with 32 and 33 ducklings respectively in 2008 were composed of 4 broods each, while the 4 amalgamated broods in 2009 with 17, 22, 29 and 34 ducklings were composed of 2, 3, 4 and 5 broods respectively. We made a correction to the number of broods to 55 in 2008 and 49 in 2009.

    Distribution

    From the data of breeding pair density over both years in Table 1 and brood density over both years in Table 2, we found the rivers with high densities of the Scaly-sided Merganser (pair density > 0.3 pairs per km and brood density > 0.1 broods per km) to be the Manjiang, Songjianghe, Fuerhe and Xilinhe. All four rivers are tributaries of the Songhuajiang river system. They are situated at the two ends of a rectangle strip of about 120 km long and 50 km wide. Obviously, these rivers are the key sites for the Scaly-sided Merganser breeding in the Changbai Mountain range. They account for more than 50% of the breeding pairs and for more than 90% of the broods of this bird in this mountain range. High densities of breeding pairs were recorded in the Toudaosonghuajiang and Songjiang rivers in the spring of 2008, while brood densities in these two rivers were extremely low. Nor did we find any broods along the stretch of the Songjiang river, surveyed in the summer of 2008 and concluded therefore that these two places were not breeding locations, but merely stop-over sites for the Scaly-sided Mergansers. Every year, the Scaly-sided Mergansers come first to the lower and middle reaches of the Yalujiang River. Their arrival occurs around the middle of March. Birds may stay there for some time and suddenly leave around the middle of April. We did not record any broods of this merganser along this river during either year. The Yalujiang River could be an important stop-over site and a pass way for the migratory Scaly-sided Mergansers.

    Population estimates

    During our surveys along the Manjiang, Songjianghe, Fuerhe and Xilinhe rivers, a total of 50 broods were recorded in 2008 and 46 in 2009. They accounted for 92.31% of the total number of broods over both years (90.9% in 2008 and 93.8% in 2009). According to our investigation, we estimated the length of the brood rearing habitats of the Scaly-sided Merganser along each of these four rivers to be as follows: 80 km along the Manjiang River, 60 km for the Songjianghe River, 75 km along the Fuerhe River and 30 km along the Xilinhe River.

    Multiplying the length of each suitable stretch with the average brood density over the two years of any particular river, we obtained the estimated number of broods for each river. From the four estimates, we summarized the number of broods, accommodated along all these four rivers, to be 83. With this summary and the ratio of 92.31%, we estimated the total number of broods for the entire Changbai Mountain range to be about 90. Broods stay on their natal rivers until fledging, hence the ratio between breeding pair density and brood density can serve as an indicator of nesting success (Shokhrin and Solovieva, 2003; Solovieva and Shokhrin, 2008). During the spring survey, we recorded a total of 102 breeding pairs in 2008 and 87 in 2009. The brood vs breeding pair ratios were 53.92% in 2008 and 56.32% in 2009, as well as 55.03% on average. From the ratios between the average number of breeding pairs and broods for both years, we calculated the number of breeding pairs of the Scaly-sided Mergansers in the Changbai Mountain range, to be about 164. Actually, we could arrive at this estimation directly from the number of breeding pairs. By multiplying the length of each suitable stretch with the average breeding pair density of the same river, we could obtain the estimated number of breeding pairs along all four rivers as 124 pairs in total. During our survey in the spring of 2008 and 2009, a total of 55 and 64 breeding pairs were recorded along the partial stretches of these four rivers. The number of breeding pairs along the four rivers as a proportion of the entire number of breeding pairs surveyed, over both years, is 62.96%. With this ratio and the estimated total number of breeding pairs for the four rivers, we estimated the number of breeding pairs for the entire Changbai Mountain range to be about 197 pairs. Considering the far higher breeding pair densities in the spring and the extremely low brood densities in the summer along stretches of the Toudaosonghuajiang and Songjiang rivers in 2008, we suspect that the breeding pair density in 2008 was overestimated. Considering these estimated results, we would prefer to decrease the estimated range to 150–190 pairs of Scaly-sided Mergansers in the Changbai mountains.

    Distribution area and population estimates

    Historically, the Scaly-sided Merganser was once widely distributed in the northeast of China during the breeding season, including some areas in the Great Xing'an mountains, the Lesser Xing'an mountains, Inner Mongolia and the Changbai mountains. But with social and economic developments, tremendous environmental changes have taken place in the breeding grounds of this species in northeastern China. These developments include large-scale deforestation, dam construction and other intensive anthropological activities. These changes might have serious effects on the status of the Scaly-sided Merganser in northeastern China, both in terms of distribution area and population trend. It was squeezed out and is absent from many of its historic habitats. At present in northeastern China, it is highly compressed in only a few sites. The distribution area of this species has sharply decreased during the last 50 years in northeastern China. This sharp decrease covered the Changbai mountains as well. Deforestation of the Changbai mountains started during the Japanese occupation and the Puppet Government in the 1930s. Most of the virgin forests outside the boundaries of the Changbai Mountain Nature Reserve were harvested during the period from the 1950s to the 1990s. While after the 1990s, our government enforced the protection of virgin forests in the Changbai mountains, the areas of virgin forests left are too few and most of the secondary forests are too young to provide enough natural cavities for breeding of this bird. With intensifying disturbance and deterioration of the remaining habitats of this species, largely caused by sand dredging, road and dam construction, as well as profitable boat drifting activities in the 2000s, the distribution of the Scaly-sided Merganser in the Changbai mountains greatly changed. Some major known historic breeding sites were lost (e.g. the Gudonghe and Sandaobaihe rivers), but a few unknown breeding sites have been recently discovered (e.g. along the Fuerhe and Hongqihe rivers). In addition, the present breeding densities of the Scaly-sided Merganser in some rivers (i.e., the Erdaobaihe and Manjiang rivers) are much lower than those in the 1990s. Nevertheless, the number of the Scaly-sided Mergansers in the Changbai mountains we estimated during our study, are more than the number estimated by Zhao and his collaborators in the 1990s (Zhao et al., 1994; Zhao and Wu, 1994). We attribute this difference to errors accrued from the differences in survey methods and survey areas between our present study and that in the 1990s, not necessarily to an increasing population trend of the Scaly-sided Merganser in the Changbai mountains over the past two decades.

    We would like to express our appreciation to Dr. Baz Hughes and Dr. Diana Solovieva for their guidance in methodology and encouragement. Field expeditions were sponsored by the Rufford Small Grant of the Rufford Foundation. We thank the participants in our field surveys, i.e., Hongliang Zhu, Bin Zhang and Anling Zhang.

    • References (70)
  • Abolaffio, M., Reynolds, A.M., Cecere, J.G., Paiva, V.H., Focardi, S., 2018. Olfactory-cued navigation in shearwaters: linking movement patterns to mechanisms. Sci. Rep. 8, 11590 .
    Allen, M.L., Wallace, C.F., Wilmers C.C., 2015. Patterns in bobcat (Lynx rufus) scent marking and communication behaviors. J. Ethol. 33, 9-14. .
    Amo, L., Galván, I., Tomás, G., Sanz, J.J., 2008. Predator odour recognition and avoidance in a songbird. Funct. Ecol. 22, 289-293. .
    Amo, L., Visser, M.E., van Oers, K., 2011. Smelling out predators is innate in birds. Ardea 99, 177-184. .
    Amo, L., Avilés, J.M., Parejo, D., Peña, A., Rodríguez, J., Tomás, G., 2012. Sex recognition by odour and variation in the uropygial gland secretion in starlings. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 605-613. .
    Amo, L., López-Rull, I., Pagán, I., García, C.M., 2015. Evidence that the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) uses scent to avoid omnivore mammals. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 88, 1-7. .
    Amo, L., Tomás, G., López-García, A., 2017. Role of chemical and visual cues of mammalian predators in nest defense in birds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 1-9. .
    Balthazart, J., Taziaux, M., 2009. The underestimated role of olfaction in avian reproduction? Behav. Brain Res. 200, 248-259. .
    Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Software 67, 1-48. .
    Blackwell, B.F., Seamans, T.W., Pfeiffer, M.B., Buckingham, B.N., 2018. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) reproduction undeterred by predator scent inside nest boxes. Can. J. Zool. 96, 980-986. .
    Bonadonna, F., Mardon, J., 2010. One house two families: petrel squatters get a sniff of low‐cost breeding opportunities. Ethology 116, 176-182. .
    Bonadonna, F., Sanz-Aguilar, A., 2012. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in wild birds: the first evidence for individual kin-related odour recognition. Anim. Behav. 84, 509-513. .
    Bowen, W.D., Cowan, I.M., 1980. Scent marking in coyotes. Can. J. Zool. 58, 473-480.
    Caro, S. P., Balthazart, J., Bonadonna, F., 2015. The perfume of reproduction in birds: chemosignaling in avian social life. Horm. Behav. 68, 25-42. .
    Caro, S.P., Balthazart, J., 2010. Pheromones in birds: myth or reality? J. Comp. Physiol. A. 196, 751-766. .
    Caspers, B.A., Hoffman, J.I., Kohlmeier, P., Krüger, O., Krause, E.T., 2013. Olfactory imprinting as a mechanism for nest odour recognition in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 86, 85-90. .
    Caspers, B.A., Gagliardo, A., Krause, E.T., 2015. Impact of kin odour on reproduction in zebra finches. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1827-1833. .
    Caspers, B.A., Hagelin, J.C., Paul, M., Bock, S., Willeke, S., Krause, E.T., 2017. Zebra Finch chicks recognise parental scent, and retain chemosensory knowledge of their genetic mother, even after egg cross-fostering. Sci. Rep. 7, 1-8. .
    Coffin, H.R., Watters, J.V., Mateo, J.M., 2011. Odor-based recognition of familiar and related conspecifics: a first test conducted on captive Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti). PLoS One. 6, e25002. .
    Driver, R.J., Balakrishnan, C.N., 2021. Highly contiguous genomes improve the understanding of avian olfactory receptor repertoires. Integr. Comp. Biol. 61, 1281-1290. .
    Eichholz, M.W., Dassow, J.A., Stafford, J.D., Weatherhead, P.J., 2012. Experimental evidence that nesting ducks use mammalian urine to assess predator abundance. Auk 129, 638-644. .
    Ekner, A., Tryjanowski, P., 2008. Do small hole nesting passerines detect cues left by a predator? A test on winter roosting sites. Acta Ornithol. (Wars.) 43, 107-111. .
    Fox, J., Weisberg, S., 2019. An R Companion to Applied Regression, third ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
    Fracasso, G., Tuliozi, B., Hoi, H., Griggio, M., 2019. Can house sparrows recognize familiar or kin-related individuals by scent? Curr. Zool. 65, 53-59. .
    Gérard, A., Ganzhorn, J.U., Kull, C.A., Carrière, S.M., 2015. Possible roles of introduced plants for native vertebrate conservation: the case of Madagascar. Restor. Ecol. 23, 768-775. .
    Godard, R.D., Bowers, B.B., Morgan Wilson, C., 2007. Eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis do not avoid nest boxes with chemical cues from two common nest predators. J. Avian Biol. 38, 128-131. .
    Golüke, S., Dörrenberg, S., Krause, E.T., Caspers, B.A., 2016. Female zebra finches smell their eggs. PLoS One 11, e0155513. .
    Grieves, L.A., Gilles, M., Cuthill, I.C., Székely, T., MacDougall-Shackleton, E.A., Caspers, B.A., 2022. Olfactory camouflage and communication in birds. Biol. Rev. 97, 1193-1209. .
    Griggio, M., Fracasso, G., Mahr, K., Hoi, H., 2016. Olfactory assessment of competitors to the nest site: an experiment on a passerine species. PLoS One 11, e0167905. .
    Gwinner, H., Berger, S., 2008. Starling males select green nest material by olfaction using experience-independent and experience-dependent cues. Anim. Behav. 75, 971-976. .
    Henry, J.D., 1977. The use of urine marking in the scavenging behavior of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Behaviour 61, 82-105.
    Hiltpold, I., Shriver, W.G., 2018. Birds bug on indirect plant defenses to locate insect prey. J. Chem. Ecol. 44, 576-579. .
    Hutchinson, L.V., Wenze, B.M., 1980. Olfactory guidance in foraging by Procellariiforms. Condor 82, 314-319. .
    Johnson, L.S., Murphy, S.M., Parrish, G.W., 2011. Lack of predator‐odor detection and avoidance by a songbird, the House Wren. J. Field Ornithol. 82, 150-157. .
    Krause, E.T., Krüger, O., Kohlmeier, P., Caspers, B.A., 2012. Olfactory kin recognition in a songbird. Biol. Lett. 8, 327-329. .
    Krause, E.T., Paul, M., Krüger, O., Caspers, B.A., 2023. Olfactory sex preferences in six Estrildid Finch species. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11, 1000531 .
    MacDonald, D.W., 1980. Patterns of scent marking with urine and faeces amongst carnivore communities. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 45, 107-139.
    Mahr, K., Nowack, L., Knauer, F., Hoi, H., 2022. Songbirds use scent cues to relocate to feeding sites after displacement: an experiment in great tits (Parus major). Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 858981 .
    Nguyen, M., McGrath, C., McNamara, C., Van Huynh, A., 2022. Tritrophic interactions with avian predators: the effect of host plant species and herbivore-induced plant volatiles on recruiting avian predators. J. Field Ornithol. .
    Petit, C., Hossaert-McKey, M., Perret, P., Blondel, J., Lambrechts, M.M., 2002. Blue tits use selected plants and olfaction to maintain an aromatic environment for nestlings. Ecol. Lett. 5, 585-589. .
    Pollonara, E., Luschi, P., Guilford, T., Wikelski, M., Bonadonna, F., Gagliardo, A., 2015. Olfaction and topography, but not magnetic cues, control navigation in a pelagic seabird: displacements with shearwaters in the Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Rep. 5, 16486 .
    Potier, S., Duriez, O., Célérier, A., Liegeois, J.L., Bonadonna, F., 2019. Sight or smell: which senses do scavenging raptors use to find food? Anim. Cognit. 22, 49-59. .
    Potier, S., 2020. Olfaction in raptors. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 189, 713-721. .
    Roth, T.C., Cox, J., Lima, S., 2008. Can foraging birds assess predation risk by scent? Anim. Behav. 76, 2021-2027. .
    Rothman, R.J., Mech, L.D., 1979. Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Anim. Behav. 27, 750-760.
    Rubene, D., Urhan, U., Ninkovic, V., Brodin, A., 2022. Great tits learn odors and colors equally well, and show no predisposition for herbivore-induced plant volatiles. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 800057 .
    Saavedra, I., Amo, L., 2018. Insectivorous birds eavesdrop on the pheromones of their prey. PLoS One. 13, e0190415. .
    Shutler, D., 2019. Some important overlooked aspects of odors in avian nesting ecology. J. Avian Biol. 50, e02003 .
    Soini, H.A., Schrock, S.E., Bruce, K.E., Wiesler, D., Ketterson, E. D., Novotny, M.V., 2007. Seasonal variation in volatile compound profiles of preen gland secretions of the dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis). J. Chem. Ecol. 33, 183-198. .
    Sonnenberg, B.R., Branch, C.L., Pitera, A.M., Bridge, E., Pravosudov, V.V., 2019. Natural selection and spatial cognition in wild food-caching mountain chickadees. Curr. Biol. 29, 670-676. .
    Stanback, M.T., Dove, C.M., Fonda, C., Parkes, P., Ptaschinski, J., 2019. Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis) do not avoid nest cavities containing predator odors. Wilson J. Ornithol. 131, 680-686. .
    Stanback, M.T., Rollfinke, M. F., 2023. Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) do not avoid nest cavities containing the odors of house mice (Mus musculus). Wilson J. Ornithol. 135, 79-85. .
    Stanbury, M., Briskie, J., 2015. I smell a rat: can New Zealand birds recognize the odor of an invasive mammalian predator? Curr. Zool. 61, 34-41. .
    Steiger, S.S., Fidler, A.E., Valcu, M., Kempenaers, B., 2008. Avian olfactory receptor gene repertoires: evidence for a well-developed sense of smell in birds? Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 275, 2309-2317. .
    Steiger, S.S., Kuryshev, V.Y., Stensmyr, M.C., Kempenaers, B., Mueller, J.C., 2009a. A comparison of reptilian and avian olfactory receptor gene repertoires: species-specific expansion of group γ genes in birds. BMC Genom. 10, 1-10. .
    Steiger, S.S., Fidler, A.E., Kempenaers, B., 2009b. Evidence for increased olfactory receptor gene repertoire size in two nocturnal bird species with well-developed olfactory ability. BMC Evol. Biol. 9, 1-11. .
    Steiger, S.S., Fidler, A.E., Mueller, J.C., Kempenaers, B., 2010. Evidence for adaptive evolution of olfactory receptor genes in 9 bird species. J. Hered. 101, 325-333. .
    Van Huynh, A., Rice, A.M., 2019. Conspecific olfactory preferences and interspecific divergence in odor cues in a chickadee hybrid zone. Ecol. Evol. 9, 9671-9683. .
    Van Huynh, A., Rice, A.M., 2021. Odor preferences in hybrid chickadees: implications for reproductive isolation and asymmetric introgression. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 75, 1-11. .
    Van Huynh, A., 2023. No Evidence of Predator Odor Avoidance in a North American Bird Community, Mendeley Data, V1. .
    Whittaker, D.J., Soini, H.A., Atwell, J.W., Hollars, C., Novotny, M.V., Ketterson, E.D., 2010. Songbird chemosignals: volatile compounds in preen gland secretions vary among individuals, sexes, and populations. Behav. Ecol. 21, 608-614. .
    Whittaker, D.J., Richmond, K.M., Miller, A.K., Kiley, R., Bergeon Burns, C., Atwell, J.W., et al., 2011a. Intraspecific preen oil odor preferences in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav. Ecol. 22, 1256-1263. .
    Whittaker, D.J., Soini, H.A., Gerlach, N.M., Posto, A.L., Novotny, M.V., Ketterson, E.D., 2011b. Role of testosterone in stimulating seasonal changes in a potential avian chemosignal. J. Chem. Ecol. 37, 1349-1357. .
    Whittaker, D.J., Gerlach, N.M., Soini, H.A., Novotny, M.V., Ketterson, E.D., 2013. Bird odour predicts reproductive success. Anim. Behav. 86, 697-703. .
    Yang, S.Y., Walther, B.A., Weng, G.J., 2015. Stop and smell the pollen: the role of olfaction and vision of the oriental honey buzzard in identifying food. PLoS One. 10, e0130191. .
    Zannoni, N., Wikelski, M., Gagliardo, A., Raza, A., Kramer, S., Seghetti, C., et al., 2020. Identifying volatile organic compounds used for olfactory navigation by homing pigeons. Sci. Rep. 10, 15879. .
    Zhang, J.X., Sun, L., Zuo, M.X., 2009. Uropygial gland volatiles may code for olfactory information about sex, individual, and species in Bengalese finches Lonchura striata. Curr. Zool. 55, 357-365. .
    Zhang, J.X., Wei, W., Zhang, J.H., Yang, W.H., 2010. Uropygial gland-secreted alkanols contribute to olfactory sex signals in budgerigars. Chem. Senses 35, 375-382. .
    Zhang, Y.H., Du, Y.F., Zhang, J.X., 2013. Uropygial gland volatiles facilitate species recognition between two sympatric sibling bird species. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1271-1278. .
    Zidar, J., Løvlie, H., 2012. Scent of the enemy: behavioural responses to predator faecal odour in the fowl. Anim. Behav. 84, 547-554. .
    • Related Articles

  • Related Articles

    Jiaojiao Wang, Peng Pan, Haijie Zhang, Laikun Ma, Qindong Zhou, Longwu Wang, Jianhua Hou. 2025: Nestlings of two parrotbill species can independently evaluate the presence of predators based on acoustic cues. Avian Research, 16(1): 100217. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100217
    Xiaogang Yao, Neng Wu, Yan Cai, Canchao Yang. 2023: The effects of anthropogenic noise on nest predation with respect to predator species across different habitats and seasons. Avian Research, 14(1): 100121. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100121
    Shilong Liu, Qiao Xie, Aiwu Jiang, Eben Goodale. 2022: Investigating how different classes of nest predators respond to the playback of the begging calls of nestling birds. Avian Research, 13(1): 100044. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100044
    Xiaocai Tan, Shilong Liu, Eben Goodale, Aiwu Jiang. 2022: Does bird photography affect nest predation and feeding frequency?. Avian Research, 13(1): 100036. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100036
    Dimitar Demerdzhiev, Dobromir Dobrev, Georgi Popgeorgiev, Stoycho Stoychev. 2022: Landscape alteration affects the demography of an endangered avian predator by reducing the habitat quality. Avian Research, 13(1): 100030. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100030
    Jiangping Yu, Li Zhang, Guodong Yi, Keqin Zhang, Jiyuan Yao, Jian Fang, Chao Shen, Haitao Wang. 2021: Plastering mud around the entrance hole affects the estimation of threat levels from nest predators in Eurasian Nuthatches. Avian Research, 12(1): 58. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00294-1
    Qian Hu, Ye Wen, Gaoyang Yu, Jiangnan Yin, Haohui Guan, Lei Lv, Pengcheng Wang, Jiliang Xu, Yong Wang, Zhengwang Zhang, Jianqiang Li. 2020: Research activity does not affect nest predation rates of the Silver-throated Tit, a passerine bird building domed nests. Avian Research, 11(1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00214-9
    Umarfarooq A. Abdulwahab, Samuel Temidayo Osinubi, Jacinta Abalaka. 2019: Risk of predation: a critical force driving habitat quality perception and foraging behavior of granivorous birds in a Nigerian forest reserve. Avian Research, 10(1): 33. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0173-6
    Somying Thunhikorn, Matthew J. Grainger, PhilipJ.K. McGowan, Tommaso Savini. 2018: Spatial distribution of display sites of Grey Peacock-pheasant in relation to micro-habitat and predators during the breeding season. Avian Research, 9(1): 17. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0107-8
    Anders Pape MØLLER, Johannes ERRITZØE, Jan Tøttrup NIELSEN. 2010: Causes of interspecific variation in susceptibility to cat predation on birds. Avian Research, 1(2): 97-111. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2010.0001

Catalog

    Figures(3)  /  Tables(1)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article has an altmetric score of 3
    Article has an altmetric score of 3
    Article views (5) PDF downloads (3) Cited by()
    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd.   Technical support: info@rhhz.net

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return