title: Mobbing and sitting tight at the nest as methods of avoiding brood parasitism.
abstract: The arms race between brood parasites and their hosts has led to many different host behaviours for avoiding parasitism. Some of these behaviours are social, and require the presence of conspecifics to work effectively: in response to alarm calls, some species engage in mobbing behaviour where neighbours join nest tenants in attacking and repelling an invading brood parasite. There are risks involved for the neighbours, but it has been demonstrated that social mobbing allows individuals to learn about the presence of brood parasites in the environment, suggesting that social learning is occurring. Here, I consider whether using social signals to alert naive individuals to the presence of brood parasites is a suitable strategy, compared with sitting tight on the nest in response to the signal (which should reduce the chances of being parasitized). I also compare the efficiency of these strategies with the case where individuals fail to change behaviour in response a brood parasite. Using an individual-based simulation model, I demonstrate that both mobbing and sitting tight are effective strategies in response to a signal, and that mobbing is more effective when the chances of being parasitized increase. These results are discussed and compared with known host-brood parasite relationships.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Behavioural Biology, School of Veterinary Science , University of Bristol , Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU , UK.
authors.forename: Sean A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Rands
keywords: alarm signals; cuckoo; group behaviour; individual-based model; mobbing; reed warbler
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Jul 21;5(7):e11705
references.pmid: 20657785
references.citation: Science. 2009 Jun 5;324(5932):1318-20
references.pmid: 19498167
references.citation: PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Oct;7(10):e1002252
references.pmid: 22028645
references.citation: Science. 1978 Nov 24;202(4370):899-901
references.pmid: 17752463
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 22;269(1507):2345-50
references.pmid: 12495502
references.citation: Science. 2004 Jul 23;305(5683):487-91
references.pmid: 15273386
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2009 Aug;84(3):485-513
references.pmid: 19659887
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Sep 7;268(1478):1783-90
references.pmid: 11522196
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22104
references.pmid: 21765938
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Oct 29;362(1486):1873-86
references.pmid: 17827098
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 12;366(1567):969-77
references.pmid: 21357219
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2010 Jul;84(3):668-70
references.pmid: 20303397
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2009 May;81(1):34-8
references.pmid: 19154783
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Dec 22;271(1557):2613-20
references.pmid: 15615688
references.citation: Ecology. 2007 Jul;88(7):1622-33
references.pmid: 17645008
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Apr;20(4):187-93
references.pmid: 16701367
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2009 Feb 10;19(3):235-40
references.pmid: 19185495