| Literature DB >> 27880762 |
Martin Bulla1, Mihai Valcu1, Adriaan M Dokter2, Alexei G Dondua3, András Kosztolányi4,5, Anne L Rutten1,6, Barbara Helm7, Brett K Sandercock8, Bruce Casler, Bruno J Ens9, Caleb S Spiegel10, Chris J Hassell11, Clemens Küpper12, Clive Minton13, Daniel Burgas14,15, David B Lank16, David C Payer17, Egor Y Loktionov18, Erica Nol19, Eunbi Kwon20, Fletcher Smith21, H River Gates22,23,24, Hana Vitnerová25, Hanna Prüter26, James A Johnson23, James J H St Clair27,28, Jean-François Lamarre29, Jennie Rausch30, Jeroen Reneerkens31, Jesse R Conklin31, Joanna Burger32, Joe Liebezeit33, Joël Bêty29, Jonathan T Coleman34, Jordi Figuerola35, Jos C E W Hooijmeijer31, José A Alves36,37, Joseph A M Smith38, Karel Weidinger39, Kari Koivula40, Ken Gosbell41, Klaus-Michael Exo42, Larry Niles43, Laura Koloski44, Laura McKinnon45, Libor Praus39, Marcel Klaassen46, Marie-Andrée Giroux47,48, Martin Sládeček49, Megan L Boldenow50, Michael I Goldstein51, Miroslav Šálek49, Nathan Senner31,52, Nelli Rönkä40, Nicolas Lecomte48, Olivier Gilg53,54, Orsolya Vincze5,55, Oscar W Johnson56, Paul A Smith57, Paul F Woodard30, Pavel S Tomkovich58, Phil F Battley59, Rebecca Bentzen60, Richard B Lanctot23, Ron Porter61, Sarah T Saalfeld23, Scott Freeman62, Stephen C Brown24, Stephen Yezerinac63, Tamás Székely64, Tomás Montalvo65, Theunis Piersma31,66, Vanessa Loverti67, Veli-Matti Pakanen40, Wim Tijsen68, Bart Kempenaers1.
Abstract
The behavioural rhythms of organisms are thought to be under strong selection, influenced by the rhythmicity of the environment. Such behavioural rhythms are well studied in isolated individuals under laboratory conditions, but free-living individuals have to temporally synchronize their activities with those of others, including potential mates, competitors, prey and predators. Individuals can temporally segregate their daily activities (for example, prey avoiding predators, subordinates avoiding dominants) or synchronize their activities (for example, group foraging, communal defence, pairs reproducing or caring for offspring). The behavioural rhythms that emerge from such social synchronization and the underlying evolutionary and ecological drivers that shape them remain poorly understood. Here we investigate these rhythms in the context of biparental care, a particularly sensitive phase of social synchronization where pair members potentially compromise their individual rhythms. Using data from 729 nests of 91 populations of 32 biparentally incubating shorebird species, where parents synchronize to achieve continuous coverage of developing eggs, we report remarkable within- and between-species diversity in incubation rhythms. Between species, the median length of one parent's incubation bout varied from 1-19 h, whereas period length-the time in which a parent's probability to incubate cycles once between its highest and lowest value-varied from 6-43 h. The length of incubation bouts was unrelated to variables reflecting energetic demands, but species relying on crypsis (the ability to avoid detection by other animals) had longer incubation bouts than those that are readily visible or who actively protect their nest against predators. Rhythms entrainable to the 24-h light-dark cycle were less prevalent at high latitudes and absent in 18 species. Our results indicate that even under similar environmental conditions and despite 24-h environmental cues, social synchronization can generate far more diverse behavioural rhythms than expected from studies of individuals in captivity. The risk of predation, not the risk of starvation, may be a key factor underlying the diversity in these rhythms.Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27880762 DOI: 10.1038/nature20563
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nature ISSN: 0028-0836 Impact factor: 49.962