| Literature DB >> 32024960 |
Deseada Parejo1,2, Jesús M Avilés3.
Abstract
Social information use has well-known fitness benefits. However, causes underlying the apparent inter-individual variability in the propensity to use social information are poorly studied. Melanins are pigments responsible for most of intra-specific color variation in vertebrates and their variation is often associated with changes in behaviour. Here, we explored whether melanism is related to individual propensity to use social information in the color polymorphic scops owl Otus scops. We manipulated social information on predation risk at nests by broadcasting calls of the sympatric little owl Athene noctua and found that owlets of brownish females exposed to alarm calls had lower levels of natural antibodies than those of greyish females. In parallel, we found changes in parental behaviour contingent on coloration because when exposed to the risky treatment brownish females returned earlier to nests than greyish females and owlets raised by brownish females were fed with smaller prey than those raised by greyish ones. These results provide support for a previous ignored role of melanins on the propensity to use social information, which may help to explain the maintenance of melanin-based color polymorphisms wherever social environments are variable.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32024960 PMCID: PMC7002771 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58826-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Results of General lineal models testing for the effect of the experimental treatment and the female color on the number of fledglings, mean weight of fledglings and mean NAbs levels in fledglings per nest.
| Number of fledglings | Mean fledgling weight | Mean Nabs level in fledglings | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 43 nests | n = 40 nests | n = 42 nests | |||||||
| DF | χ | p | DF | F | p | DF | F | p | |
| Intercept | 1 | ||||||||
| Treatment | 2 | 1.49 | 0.47 | 2,31 | 0.53 | 0.59 | |||
| Female color | 1 | 1.43 | 0.23 | 1,31 | 0.19 | 0.67 | 1,34 | 2.84 | 0.10 |
| Treatment*female color | 2 | 1.42 | 0.49 | 2,31 | 1.62 | 0.21 | |||
| Laying date | 1 | 1,33 | 0.24 | 0.63 | |||||
| Year | 2 | 2.95 | 0.23 | ||||||
Laying date, which was included as a covariate in all models, was backward removed from the models when it was far from significance (P > 0.1). Significant terms of the final model are highlighted in bold. Degrees of freedom for fixed effects in models with Normal error distribution were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.
Figure 1Immunology of nestlings under the different treatments. Differences in mean (+se) values of NAbs level of nestlings per nest in relation to the social information treatment (alarm nests, n = 16; non-alarm nests, n = 15; control nests, n = 11) for nests raised by brownish (brown columns) and greyish (grey columns) females. High levels of NAbs indicate good immunity. Number of nests within each group are shown inside columns. Letters above columns indicate statistically significant different groups.
Results of General lineal models testing the effect of the experimental manipulation and individual color on differences between pre- and treatment time in latency of males and females to resume usual activities, in provisioning rate of male and females and in mean size of provisioned prey per nest.
| Females | Both adults | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latency | Provisioning rate | Mean prey size | |||||||
| n = 18 nests | n = 18 nests | n = 17 nests | |||||||
| DF | F/ | P | DF | F/ | p | DF | F/ | p | |
| Intercept | 12 | 0.30 | 0.76 | 11 | 1.88 | 0.09 | |||
| Treatment | 2,11 | 1.64 | 0.24 | 2,12 | 0.66 | 0.53 | 2,11 | 1.89 | 0.20 |
| Female color | 1,11 | 0.05 | 0.82 | 1,12 | 0.39 | 0.55 | |||
| Treatment*female color | 2,12 | 1.28 | 0.31 | ||||||
| Laying date | 1,11 | 1.05 | 0.33 | 1,10 | 0.48 | 0.50 | |||
| Intercept | 8 | 0.34 | 0.74 | ||||||
| Treatment | 2,9 | 2.68 | 0.12 | 2,8 | 0.44 | 0.66 | 2,8 | 1.35 | 0.31 |
| Male color | 1,9 | 0.05 | 0.83 | 1,8 | 0.01 | 0.94 | 1,8 | 4.39 | 0.07 |
| Treatment*male color | 2,9 | 2.56 | 0.13 | 2,8 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 2,8 | 0.72 | 0.52 |
| Laying date | 1,8 | 0.04 | 0.84 | 1,7 | 0.93 | 0.37 | |||
*Please be aware that although sample size is not very high (see the number of nest for each analysis above) all nests were monitored in control and experimental conditions and, hence, for each variable the difference between the treatment and the previous time may be useful.
Laying date, which was included as a covariate in all models, was removed from the models when it was far from significance (P > 0.1). Significant terms of the final model are highlighted in bold. Degrees of freedom for fixed effects were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.
Figure 2Differences between the pre- and during- treatment (alarm nests, n = 7; non-alarm nests, n = 6; control nests, n = 5) periods in: (a) latency of females (mean ± se) to resume usual activities at nests for brownish (brown dots) and greyish (grey squares) females; and in (b) relative prey size (mean ± se) brought at each nest by the two parents, for nests raised by brownish (brown dots) and greyish (grey squares) females. Letters above bars indicate statistically significant different groups.