Abstract
Few cases of adoption have been reported in solitary breeding raptors, and in owls adoption has only been reported in two species. Here we report four cases of brood-switching of juvenile Tengmalm’s Owls (Aegolius funereus), recorded during and after the post-fledging dependence period using radio-telemetry, and a case of three orphaned siblings (one nestling and two fledglings) originally from one nestbox successfully fostered to another one. A possible evolutionary context of the brood-switching is discussed.
Zusammenfassung
Alloparentale Brutpflege und „Adoption“ beim Raufußkauz ( Aegolius funereus )
Fälle von Adoption bei solitär brütenden Greifvögeln sind nur selten beschrieben worden und bei den Eulen bisher auch nur für zwei Arten. Wir berichten hier von vier Fällen von Brut-Vertauschens bei jungen Raufußkäuzen (Aegolius funereus), die während und nach des Ausfliegens per Radiotelemetrie verfolgt wurden. Ferner beschreiben wir den Fall von drei verlassenen Jungen (eines noch im Nest, die anderen beiden gerade flügge geworden), die erfolgreich von einem Nistkasten in einen anderen umgesetzt und weiter gefüttert worden wurden. Mögliche evolutionsbiologische Zusammenhänge des Brutvertauschens werden diskutiert.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Adult individuals providing parental care for young which are not genetically related to them are referred to as alloparents (Wilson 1975). The alloparental care (temporary or permanent adoption) of non-related juveniles has been reported in many bird species (Riedman 1982), even though such altruistic behaviour (Hamilton 1964) essentially violates Darwinian theory that individuals are selected not to expend resources in the propagation of competing genotypes (Wilson 1975; Dawkins 1976; Riedman 1982). Several possible explanations have been offered to account for this apparent inconsistency between theory and observation (see reviews in Redondo et al. 1995; Avital et al. 1998; Bize et al. 2003). These include non-adaptive explanations, such as maladaptive behaviour, reproductive errors and adoptions with no or negligible costs in term of fitness for foster parents, and adaptive explanations, such as kin-selected benefits for alloparents (genetic relatedness, reciprocal altruism, predation dilution and better predator detection, gain of breeding experience). There may also be direct benefits for juveniles (better parental care, higher food intake, higher rank in the foster brood, reduction of parasite load, match-making hypothesis). The validity of these explanations and the emphasis which can be placed on them vary in relation to the developmental stage of the young of that particular species at hatching (precocial, semi-precocial and altricial), the breeding system (solitary, semi-colonial and colonial) and breeding phase during which adoptive behaviours occur (early or late nestling or post-fledging period) (see, for example, Bustamante and Hiraldo 1990; Williams 1994; Brown et al. 1995; Larsson et al. 1995; Redondo et al. 1995; Roulin 1999; Bukacinski et al. 2000; Bize and Roulin 2006; Penteriani and Delgado 2008).
Few cases of adoption in solitary breeding raptors have been described (see reviews in Arroyo and García 2002; Penteriani and Delgado 2008; Anctil and Franke 2013), and in owls adoption has only been reported in two species, namely, the Barn Owl (Tyto alba; Roulin 1999) and the Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo; Penteriani and Delgado 2008). All reported observations of adoption in birds of prey took place at the end of nestling period or during post-fledging dependence period (hereafter PFDP). Such examples in predatory bird species could therefore be described as post-fledging brood parasitism rather than adoption (Kenward et al. 1993) and possibly result from an effort by the juveniles to receive extra food, facilitated only in situations of high breeding densities and/or where there is a potential for a failure of offspring recognition by foster parents (e.g. Bustamante and Hiraldo 1990; Donazar and Ceballos 1990; Tella et al. 1997; Arroyo and García 2002; Penteriani and Delgado 2008).
Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus) is a solitary breeder, nesting in natural cavities or artificial nestboxes (Mikkola 1983; Cramp 1985; Kouba et al. 2014b). Juveniles hatch asynchronously over a 2-day timespan and stay in the nest for 27–38 days after hatching (Korpimäki 1981; Kouba et al. 2015), thus fledging at different times and reaching independence between 5 and 9 weeks after fledging (Eldegard and Sonerud 2009, 2010, 2012; Kouba et al. 2013). By far the majority of prey brought to the young throughout the late nestling phase and the PFDP is delivered by the male of this species (Zárybnická 2009; Eldegard and Sonerud 2010, 2012). During this time, the offspring vocalize to solicit food from parents with short, hissing cheet calls (König and Weick 2008; Kouba et al. 2014a). The coloration of young during late nestling and PFDP is distinctly different from that of adults and thus the former can be distinguished by an observer (Korpimäki and Hakkarainen 2012).
The results of experiments involving the manipulation of brood size and cross-fostering of newly hatched Tengmalm’s Owl chicks have demonstrated that survival of the transferred nestlings can equal that of the resident young, suggesting that breeding adults do not discriminate effectively between their own chicks and fostered ones (Korpimäki 1987, 1988; Thomson et al. 2014).
We report here our observations of cases of nest- and brood-switching undertaken and recorded during radio-tracking of juvenile Tengmalm’s Owls throughout the PFDP. We also report possible alloparenting of unrelated fledglings by wild owls, as well as the results of a deliberate manipulation in which we relocated three siblings into a different nest. This latter intervention was performed to rescue these three young birds when it became obvious that their own father had—for undetermined reasons (possibly death)—stopped providing them with food.
Methods
Duration of the PFDP in Tengmalm’s Owl was studied over four breeding seasons in the Czech Republic (2010–2012 and 2015) using radio-tracking. The study area is situated in the Ore Mountains (50°N, 13°E; 730–960 m a.s.l.) and covers about 70 km2 (for detailed description of the study area, see Kouba et al. 2013). As compensation for the lack of natural tree cavities, wooden nestboxes lined with wood chips have been installed gradually in the area since 1999, and the majority of owls now breed in these artificial nestboxes. During the study period all nestboxes (n = 120–170) within the study area were visited regularly at intervals of 2–3 weeks from early March to July. Nests identified were then checked sufficiently often to assess the number of eggs, time of hatching and number of hatchlings. Nestlings were sexed by molecular procedures using DNA extracted from blood (for details, see Kouba et al. 2014a).
Several days before fledging 76 fledglings from 19 nestboxes were equipped with leg-mount transmitters (Biotrack Ltd., Wareham, UK) (2010: 6 nests, 29 nestlings; 2011: 5 nests, 10 nestlings; 2012: 2 nests, 10 nestlings; 2015: 6 nests, 27 nestlings). After fledging, the young were located by radio-tracking once every night (2010–2012) and every day (2012 and 2015) until the fledglings became independent [58 individuals which survived until independence were located throughout the PFDP for a mean of 49 ± 6 days (mean ± standard deviation)] using a MVT-9000 receiver (Yupiteru Industries Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and 3-element Yagi antenna and following the ‘homing-in’ method (Kenward 2001; Kouba et al. 2013, 2014a). Once spotted, the fledgling’s position was recorded using the GPS receiver (GPSmap 60CSx; Garmin Ltd., Schaffhausen, Switzerland).
As in the previous studies (see Kouba et al. 2013, 2014a), prey availability in the study area was assessed by using snap-traps at the beginning of June in each year of the study. The snap-traps were set up in squares (with 10-m spacing), left out for 3 days and checked daily. Thus, the total trapping effort was 1089 trap-nights (n = 3 locations). The number of captured mammals per 100 trap-nights was then calculated.
Results
We observed four ‘natural’ cases of possible alloparental care. The first two cases (A1 and A2, in 2011 and 2012, respectively) involved one newly independent fledgling each; these were observed to be begging by calling together with fledglings from another nest. That we identified only these two cases of possible alloparental care from the 326 possible opportunities during 3 years of nocturnal radio-tracking aimed at discovering individual brood-switching after PFDP demonstrates the negligible low frequency of this behaviour (0.6 %). In 2011 (case A1; Table 1; Figs. 1, 2) a male fledgling left his natal area and was seen begging for food together with a female who had fledged from the nestbox actually associated with that new area. In 2012 (case A2; Table 1; Fig. 1, 2) a female fledgling left her natal area and was observed begging for food within a group of five fledglings resident within that new area. Both individuals were considered to be brood-switchers (sensu Penteriani and Delgado 2008).
The third and fourth cases of possible ‘natural’ alloparental care (B1 and B2; both in 2015) involved five unknown and non-tagged fledglings repeatedly observed to be roosting with resident fledglings from two different nests. These two cases were recorded over a 4-year period during which time a total of 19 nests/sibling groups were monitored. The data suggest a frequency of 11 % brood-switching during the PFDP.
In case B1 (Table 1; Fig. 1) five nestlings were known to have fledged from the ‘home’ nestbox within a given area of which four were radio-tagged (the first/oldest young fledged before tagging). Later, one to four non-tagged fledglings were observed roosting close together with four resident young on a total of 32 occasions. The scenario was similar in case B2 (Table 1; Fig. 1) where two unknown fledglings were observed roosting close together with three radio-tagged resident fledglings on 17 occasions in total (recorded near the nestbox where the orphaned juveniles were fostered—case report C described below). In this case, four nestlings fledged from the resident’s nestbox, among which three survived up to independence and one was most probably lost to predation (Table 1). In both cases, unknown individuals were also considered to be brood-switchers.
The last case (C; Table 1; Fig. 1) involved the fate of three siblings (1 nestling and 2 fledglings, 29, 31 and 33 days from hatching, respectively) from one nestbox which were fostered to another nestbox. One resident young with no stored prey was in the host nestbox at the time when the three unrelated young were added. On the following day (30 May) the resident chick had fledged and the nestbox contained only the three fostered young, together with eight fresh prey items [7× yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) and 1× field vole (Microtus agrestis)]. Fresh prey was found in the host’s nestbox during each of the following days until the fostered young had fledged. Thereafter, two fostered and the one resident juvenile from the host nestbox survived until independence (being radio-located every day from fledging to dispersion). These three individuals stayed close together throughout the PFDP and behaved like true siblings. Daily inter-individual distances (mean ± standard deviation) between the resident young (female R f) and the two adopted young (male A m; female A f) were calculated to be 62 ± 74 m (n = 52 days), with R f − A m = 73 ± 101 m, R f − A f = 46 ± 65 m and A m − A f = 67 ± 92 m.
Discussion
The brood-switches recorded in our study in 2011 and 2012 (A1 and A2) seem to be very similar to those observed in 2006 by Penteriani and Delgado (2008) in Eagle Owls. Both of the Tengmalm’s Owl brood-switches observed in our study coincided more or less with the end of PFDP and were thus associated with the random predispersal movements of fledglings; specifically, both brood-switches occurred shortly before the end of the PFDP of the broods, which the switchers joined. Brood-switching in this way might be more common because of the high breeding density of Tengmalm’s Owl in our study area (10–37 breeding pairs/100 km2 over a 16-year period) and because the young of this bird species beg loudly for food, especially at the end of PFDP (Kouba et al. 2014a). These factors suggest the possibility of promoting brood-switching in several other birds of prey, such as the Red Kite (Milvus milvus), Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus), Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila adalberti), Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Barn and Eagle Owl (Bustamante and Hiraldo 1990; Donazar and Ceballos 1990; Ferrer 1993; Kenward et al. 1993; Roulin 1999; Penteriani and Delgado 2008). We suggest that after cessation of their own parental care, these two brood-switchers tried to obtain extra food during predispersal movements. We did not observe if they received any real alloparental care; however, one of them was begging together with the residents during two consecutive nights, suggesting that alloparental care was likely.
Cases B1 and B2 (recorded in 2015; 10 km between the two involved nestboxes) seem to be very similar to the brood-switches recorded in 2004 in Eagle Owls (Penteriani and Delgado 2008). However, in both of these latter cases it is possible that brood-switching and possible alloparenting might be explained based on theories of kin selection and kinship altruism (Hamilton 1964); it is possible the individuals in mixed broods were genetically related since polygyny has been regularly reported in Tengmalm’s Owl (Korpimäki and Hakkarainen 2012) and has been repeatedly recorded in our study area as well (K. Šťastný, unpublished data). If this were to be true, it might explain the two cases of brood-switching (by unmarked individuals) in terms of brood unification for a single male caring for a double brood. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the situation is analogous to that described for Eagle Owls by Penteriani and Delgado (2008): alien fledglings establish themselves in foster broods during the later part of PFDP and simply take advantage of a food surplus in an area/year of high prey availability and adults may not be able to accurately distinguish between progeny and simply feed all the young in the vicinity of their nest area.
This notion of an inability of a parent to discriminate between juveniles is further supported by the case of adoption after fostering, which certainly would suggest that Tengmalm’s Owl parents were not able to recognize offspring even during the late nestling and fledging phase. If brood-switching was a relatively common event in Tengmalm’s Owl, then we might expect a selection pressure on the parents to reject genetically unrelated young (Dawkins and Krebs 1979). Our successful fostering took place during a year in which the food supply was moderate to plentiful, suggesting that Tengmalm’s Owl adults (or at least males) were not able to recognize their own chicks even at the fledging age since the fostered young did not show any signs of starvation after fostering. This state of well-being was maintained over the 64-day period until the end of PFDP. It seems quite possible the Tengmalm’s Owl adults are not even able to count and remember how many chicks there were initially in the nest. Similarly, Roulin (1999) reported that foster Barn Owl families tolerated alien fledglings. Likewise, Eagle Owl families adopted and cared for fledgling intruders without any hostility against them (Penteriani and Delgado 2008).
To conclude, based on our observations we speculate that the brood-switching (at least A1 and A2) and artificial fostering (C) which took place in our study area could be explained by the inability of adult owls to discriminate between their own and unrelated, offspring even at the fledging age. We suggest that this inability to distinguish between offspring can be used for conservation purposes and rehabilitation projects in the case of abandoned, orphaned and/or injured nestlings, as has already been suggested for other raptors (Postupalsky and Holt 1975; Di Vittorio 2006). The same explanation may also account for the brood-switches observed in 2015 (B1 and B2), although here we may alternatively speculate some involvement of kinship and inclusive fitness (Hamilton 1964). This area of research is clearly interesting, and more studies on bird species with established polygyny are needed.
References
Anctil A, Franke A (2013) Intraspecific adoption and double nest switching in Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus). Arctic 66:222–225
Arroyo BE, García JT (2002) Alloparental care and kleptoparasitism in the semicolonial Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus. Ibis 144:676–679
Avital E, Jablonka E, Lachmann M (1998) Adopting adoption. Anim Behav 55:1451–1459
Bize P, Roulin A (2006) No experimental evidence that sibling competition induces young to switch nests in the colonial Alpine Swift, Apus melba. Anim Behav 72:869–873
Bize P, Roulin A, Richner H (2003) Adoption as an offspring strategy to reduce ectoparasite exposure. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:S114–S116
Brown KM, Woulfe M, Morris RD (1995) Patterns of adoption in Ring-billed Gulls: who is really winning the intergenerational conflict? Anim Behav 49:321–331
Bukacinski D, Bukacinska M, Lubjuhn T (2000) Adoption of chicks and the level of relatedness in Common Gull, Larus canus, colonies: DNA fingerprinting analyses. Anim Behav 59:289–299
Bustamante J, Hiraldo F (1990) Adoptions of fledglings by Black and Red Kites. Anim Behav 39:804–806
Cramp S (1985) The birds of the western Palaearctic, vol IV. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 205:489–511
Donazar JA, Ceballos O (1990) Acquisition of food by fledgling Egyptian Vultures Neophron percnopterus by nest-switching and acceptance by foster adults. Ibis 132:603–607
Eldegard K, Sonerud GA (2009) Female offspring desertion and male-only care increase with natural and experimental increase in food abundance. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:1713–1721
Eldegard K, Sonerud GA (2010) Experimental increase in food supply influences the outcome of within-family conflicts in Tengmalm’s Owl. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:815–826
Eldegard K, Sonerud GA (2012) Sex roles during post-fledging care in birds: female Tengmalm’s Owls contribute little to food provisioning. J Ornithol 153:385–398
Ferrer M (1993) Natural adoption of fledglings by Spanish Imperial Eagles Aquila adalberti. J Ornithol 134:335–337
Hamilton WD (1964) Genetical evolution of social behaviour I, II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52
Hayne DW (1949) Calculation of size of home range. J Mamm 30:1–18
Kenward RE (2001) A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic Press, London
Kenward RE, Marcström V, Karlbom M (1993) Postnestling behavior in Goshawks, Accipiter gentilis: II. Sex differences in sociality and nest-switching. Anim Behav 46:371–378
Korpimäki E (1981) On the ecology and biology of Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus) in southern Ostrobothnia and Soumenselkä, western Finland. Acta Univ Oul A 118 Biol 13:1–84
Korpimäki E (1987) Clutch size, breeding success and brood size experiments in Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus: a test of hypotheses. Ornis Scand 18:277–284
Korpimäki E (1988) Costs of reproduction and success of manipulated broods under varying food conditions in Tengmalm’s Owl. J Anim Ecol 57:1027–1039
Korpimäki E, Hakkarainen H (2012) The Boreal Owl: ecology, behaviour and conservation of a forest-dwelling predator. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kouba M, Bartoš L, Korpimäki E, Zárybnická M (2015) Factors affecting the duration of nestling period and fledging order in Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus): effect of wing length and hatching sequence. PLoS One 10(3):e0121641. doi:10.0121371/journal.pone.0121641
Kouba M, Bartoš L, Zárybnická M (2014b) Perching of Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus) nestlings at the nest box entrance: effect of time of the day, age, wing length and body weight. PLoS One 9(5):e97504. doi:10.91371/journal.pone.0097504
Kouba M, Bartoš L, Šťastný K (2013) Differential movement patterns of juvenile Tengmalm’s Owls (Aegolius funereus) during the post-fledging dependence period in two years with contrasting prey abundance. PLoS One 8(7):e67034. doi:10.61371/journal.pone.0067034
Kouba M, Bartoš L, Šťastný K (2014a) Factors affecting vocalization in Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus) fledglings during post-fledging dependence period: scramble competition or honest signalling of need? PLoS One 9(4):e95594. doi:10.91371/journal.pone.0095594
König C, Weick F (2008) Owls of the world, 2nd edn. Yale University Press, New Haven and London
Larsson K, Tegelström H, Forslund P (1995) Intraspecific nest parasitism and adoption of young in the Barnacle Goose: effects on survival and reproductive performance. Anim Behav 50:1349–1360
Mikkola H (1983) Owls of Europe. Poyser, London
Penteriani V, Delgado MD (2008) Brood-switching in Eagle Owl Bubo bubo fledglings. Ibis 150:816–819
Postupalsky S, Holt JB (1975) Adoption of nestlings by breeding Bald Eagles. J Raptor Res 9:18–20
Redondo T, Tortosa FS, Dereyna LA (1995) Nest switching and alloparental care in colonial White Storks. Anim Behav 49:1097–1110
Riedman ML (1982) The evolution of alloparental care and adoption in mammals and birds. Q Rev Biol 57:405–435
Roulin A (1999) Natural and experimental nest-switching in Barn Owl Tyto alba fledglings. Ardea 87:237–246
Tella JL, Forero MG, Donazar JA, Negro JJ, Hiraldo F (1997) Non-adaptive adoptions of nestlings in the colonial Lesser Kestrel: proximate causes and fitness consequences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:253–260
Thomson RL, Griesser M, Laaksonen T, Korpimäki E (2014) Brood size manipulations in a spatially and temporally varying environment: male Tengmalm’s Owls pass increased reproductive costs to offspring. Oecologia 176:423–430
Di Vittorio M (2006) Successful fostering of a captive-born Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus) in Sicily. J Raptor Res 40:247–248
Williams TD (1994) Adoption in a precocial species, the Lesser Snow Goose—intergenerational conflict, altruism or a mutually beneficial strategy? Anim Behav 47:101–107
Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology. Belknap Press, Harvard
Zárybnická M (2009) Parental investment of female Tengmalm’s Owls Aegolius funereus: correlation with varying food abundance and reproductive success. Acta Ornithol 44:81–88
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Alessandro Fantoni and Petr Kouba for their help in the field, and to Lucie Brejšková and Markéta Zárybnická for DNA analysis and sexing the nestlings. We also acknowledge Rory Putman for valuable comments on the early draft of the manuscript and for improving the English. Last but not least, we would like to thank Peter Sunde and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of the manuscript. This work has been supported by grants from the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CIGA ČZU 20104205 and 20144203), the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MŠMT 1321/213205), Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (MZERO 0716), and by grant EHP-CZ02-OV-1-024-2015 from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by F. Bairlein.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kouba, M., Bartoš, L., Šindelář, J. et al. Alloparental care and adoption in Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus). J Ornithol 158, 185–191 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1381-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1381-z