Piping as a display of dominance by wintering Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus
Piping as a display of dominance by wintering Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus
复制标题
越冬蛎鹬用管道来展示统治地位
DOI：
10.1111/j.1474-919x.1986.tb02687.x
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
J. Goss‐Custard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Ens;J. Goss‐Custard
尽管在Exe河口越冬的捕牡蛎Haematopus ostralegus在任何类型的攻击性接触中都会表演管状表演，但主要在两种情况下观察到。当一个人在附近没有明显对手的情况下进行管道比赛时，就会出现“单人管道”现象。在“吹笛仪式”中，两个或更多的人近距离地长时间地相互吹奏。在旷日持久的贻贝争夺战中，获胜的通常是最初开始叫板的人。最具攻击性和最成功的鸟类(支配鸟)，最经常进行孤独的鸣笛和鸣笛仪式，花费了多达10%的时间。这表明，这种行为与支配地位有关。假设是，如果这两只鸟的相对地位尚未确定，它们很可能会开始鸣笛，因此无法迅速结束关于贻贝或觅食地点的争端。一只占统治地位的个体从远处发出孤独的笛声，以压制其摄食范围内其他鸟类的攻击性活动。如果这个信号失败，占主导地位的鸟可能会加入仪式，解释为什么三只鸟是参与吹笛仪式最频繁的鸟。蝴蝶飞行主要是由明显占优势的鸟类在到达觅食地时使用的，这可能表明它们在那里的地位很高。
几个涉及已知优势鸟类的鸣笛仪式的结果与这一解释一致。只有两只鸟参加的鸣笛仪式(被解释为没有支配者加入的鸣笛仪式)在最占优势的个体的觅食范围的末端也符合这一假设，因为这是它们的支配地位预计会下降的地方，因此更有可能受到竞争。这种对管子和蝴蝶显示的解释假定个体可以识别其他个体或快速评估他们的优势。由于优势个体受到攻击的频率低于劣势个体，如果没有识别，攻击鸟类的回绝也比预期的要少，我们认为确实存在某种形式的优势或个体识别。白领的宽度与支配地位无关，但这一特征的个体差异可能使鸟类能够彼此区分，从而了解它们的相对地位。有趣的是，通常用来回击误入歧途的袭击者的外交姿态，似乎几乎是为了让对手对白领有一个特别清晰的认识。
Although Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus wintering in the Exe Estuary performed the piping display in any type of aggressive encounter, it was predominantly observed in two contexts. ‘Solitary piping’ occurred when one individual piped without an obvious opponent being in the immediate vicinity. In ‘piping ceremonies’, two or more individuals piped at each other for prolonged periods at close distance. Prolonged contests over mussels were usually won by the individual that had initially started piping. The most aggressive and successful birds (the dominants), engaged most often in solitary piping and piping ceremonies, using up to 10% of their time this way. This suggests that the behaviour was associated with dominance rank. The hypothesis is that the two birds are likely to start piping if their relative status has not already been established, so that a quick end to a dispute over a mussel or feeding site is not achieved. A dominant individual performs solitary piping from a distance to suppress the aggressive activities of other birds within its feeding range. If this signal fails, the dominant may join the ceremony, explaining why three was the most frequent number of birds involved in piping ceremonies. The ‘butterfly’ flight, used mainly by apparently dominant birds as they arrived on the feeding grounds, may signal their high status to birds already there.
The outcome of several piping ceremonies involving birds of known dominance was consistent with this explanation. The location of piping ceremonies involving only two birds (interpreted as piping ceremonies not joined by dominants) at the extremities of the feeding ranges of the most dominant individuals is also consistent with this hypothesis, because this is where their dominance would be expected to decline and would therefore be more likely to be contested. This explanation of piping and butterfly displays assumes that individuals can recognize other individuals or quickly assess their dominance. Since dominant individuals were attacked less often than subdominants and attacking birds were rebuffed less than would be expected if recognition did not occur, we suggest that some form of dominance or individual recognition did exist. The width of the white collar did not correlate with dominance, but the individual variations in this feature may enable birds to distinguish each other and thus learn their relative status. It is intriguing that the diplomatist posture, which is typically used to rebuff misguided attackers, seems almost designed to give the opponent a particularly clear view of the white collar.