Communal roosting

Last updated
Galahs gathering for communal roost, Karratha (Australia) Galahs 6 (7857250744).jpg
Galahs gathering for communal roost, Karratha (Australia)

Communal roosting is an animal behavior where a group of individuals, typically of the same species, congregate in an area for a few hours based on an external signal and will return to the same site with the reappearance of the signal. [1] [2] Environmental signals are often responsible for this grouping, including nightfall, high tide, or rainfall. [2] [3] The distinction between communal roosting and cooperative breeding is the absence of chicks in communal roosts. [2] While communal roosting is generally observed in birds, the behavior has also been seen in bats, primates, and insects. [2] [4] The size of these roosts can measure in the thousands to millions of individuals, especially among avian species. [5]

Contents

There are many benefits associated with communal roosting including: increased foraging ability, decreased thermoregulatory demands, decreased predation, and increased conspecific interactions. [4] [6] While there are many proposed evolutionary concepts for how communal roosting evolved, no specific hypothesis is currently supported by the scientific community as a whole.

Evolution

One of the adaptive explanations for communal roosting is the hypothesis that individuals are benefited by the exchange of information at communal roosts. This idea is known as the information center hypothesis (ICH) and proposed by Peter Ward and Amotz Zahavi in 1973. It states that bird assemblages such as communal roosts act as information hubs for distributing knowledge about food source location. When food patch knowledge is unevenly distributed amongst certain flock members, the other "clueless" flock members can follow and join these knowledgeable members to find good feeding locations. To quote Ward and Zahavi on the evolutionary reasons as to how communal roosts came about, "...communal roosts, breeding colonies and certain other bird assemblages have been evolved primarily for the efficient exploitation of unevenly-distributed food sources by serving as ' information-centres.' " [7]

The two strategies hypothesis

A stylized example of a communal roost under the two strategies hypothesis, with the more dominant individuals occupying the higher and safer roosts. Communal Roosting Under the Two Strategies Hypothesis.png
A stylized example of a communal roost under the two strategies hypothesis, with the more dominant individuals occupying the higher and safer roosts.

The two strategies hypothesis was put forth by Patrick Weatherhead in 1983 as an alternative to the then popular information center hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that different individuals join and participate in communal roosts for different reasons that are based primarily on their social status. Unlike the ICH, not all individuals will join a roost in order to increase their foraging capabilities. This hypothesis explains that while roosts initially evolved due to information sharing among older and more experienced foragers, this evolution was aided by the benefits that more experienced foragers gained due to the fact that as better foragers they acquired a status of high rank within the roost. As dominant individuals, they are able to obtain the safest roosts, typically those highest in the tree or closest to the center of the roost. In these roosts, the less dominant and unsuccessful foragers act as a physical predation buffer for the dominant individuals. This is similar to the selfish herd theory, which states that individuals within herds will utilize conspecifics as physical barriers from predation. The younger and less dominant individuals will still join the roost because they gain some safety from predation through the dilution effect, as well as the ability to learn from the more experienced foragers that are already in the roost. [8]

Support for the two strategies hypothesis has been shown in studies of roosting rooks ( Corvus frugilegus ). A 1977 study of roosting rooks by Ian Swingland showed that an inherent hierarchy exists within rook communal roosts. In this hierarchy, the most dominant individuals have been shown to routinely occupy the roosts highest in the tree, and while they pay a cost (increased energy use to keep warm) they are safer from terrestrial predators. [9] Despite this enforced hierarchy, lower ranking rooks remained with the roost, indicating that they still received some benefit from their participation in the roost. [8] When weather conditions worsened, the more dominant rooks forced the younger and less dominant out of their roosts. Swingland proposed that the risk of predation at lower roosts was outweighed by the gains in reduced thermal demands. [9] Similar support for the two strategies hypothesis has also been found in red-winged blackbird roosts. In this species the more dominant males will regularly inhabit roosts in thicker brush, where they are better hidden from predators than the less dominant individuals, that are forced to roost at the edge of the brush. [10]

The TSH makes several assumptions that must be met in order for the theory to work. The first major assumption is that within communal roosts there are certain roosts that possess safer or more beneficial qualities than other roosts. The second assumption is that the more dominant individuals will be capable of securing these roosts, and finally dominance rank must be a reliable indicator of foraging ability. [2]

The recruitment center hypothesis (RCH)

Proposed by Heinz Richner and Philipp Heeb in 1996, the recruitment center hypothesis (RCH) explains the evolution of communal roosting as a result of group foraging. The RCH also explains behaviors seen at communal roosts such as: the passing of information, aerial displays, and the presence or lack of calls by leaders. [2] This hypothesis assumes:

These factors decrease relative food competition since control over a food source by an individual is not correlated to the duration or richness of said source. [4] The passing of information acts to create a foraging group. Group foraging decreases predation and increases relative feeding time at the cost of sharing a food source. The decrease in predation is due to the dilution factor and an early warning system created by having multiple animals alert. Increases in relative feeding are explained by decreasing time spent watching for predators and social learning. [2] Recruiting new members to food patches benefits successful foragers by increasing relative numbers. [4] With the addition of new members to a group the benefits of group foraging increase until the group size is larger than the food source is able to support. Less successful foragers benefit by gaining knowledge of where food sources are located. [4] Aerial displays are used to recruit individuals to participate in group foraging. However, not all birds display since not all birds are members in a group or are part of a group that is seeking participants. In the presence of patchy resources, Richner and Heeb propose the simplest manner would be to form a communal roost and recruit participants there. [2] In other words, recruitment to foraging groups explains the presence of these communal roosts.

Support for the RCH has been shown in ravens ( Covus corax ). Reviewing a previous study by John Marzluff, Bernd Heinrich, and Colleen Marzluff, Etienne Danchin and Heinz Richner demonstrate that the collected data proves the RCH instead of the Information Center Hypothesis supported by Marzluff, et al. Both knowledgeable and naïve ("clueless") birds are shown to make up the roosts and leave them at the same time, with the naïve birds being led to the food sources. Aerial demonstrations were shown to peak around the same time as the discovery of a new food source. [11] These communities were made up of non-breeders which forage in patchily distributed food environments, following the assumptions made by Richner and Heeb. [2] [11] In 2014, Sarangi et al. shown that the recruitment centre hypothesis did not hold in the study population of Common Mynas (Acridotheres tristis) and hence Common Myna roosts are not recruitment centres. [12]

At this point in time there has been no additional scientific evidence excluding RCH or any evidence of overwhelming support. What is overlooked by RCH is that information may also be passed within the communal roost which increases and solidifies the community. [13]

Potential benefits

Birds in a communal roost can reduce the impact of wind and cold weather by sharing body heat through huddling, which reduces the overall energy demand of thermoregulation. A study by Guy Beauchamp explained that black-billed magpies ( Pica hudsonia ) often formed the largest roosts during the winter. The magpies tend to react very slowly at low body temperatures, leaving them vulnerable to predators. Communal roosting in this case would improve their reactivity by sharing body heat, allowing them to detect and respond to predators much more quickly. [4]

A large roost with many members can visually detect predators easier, allowing individuals to respond and alert others quicker to threats. [4] Individual risk is also lowered due to the dilution effect, which states that an individual in a large group will have a low probability of being preyed upon. Similar to the selfish-herd theory, communal roosts have demonstrated a hierarchy of sorts where older members and better foragers nest in the interior of the group, decreasing their exposure to predators. Younger birds and less able foragers located on the outskirts still demonstrate some safety from predation due to the dilution effect. [8]

According to the ICH, successful foragers share knowledge of favorable foraging sites with unsuccessful foragers at a communal roost, making it energetically advantageous for individuals to communally roost and forage more easily. Additionally with a greater number of individuals at a roost, the searching range of a roost will increase and improve the probability of finding favorable foraging sites. [7]

There are also potentially improved mating opportunities, as demonstrated by red-billed choughs ( Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax), which have a portion of a communal roost dedicated to individuals that lack mates and territories. [14]

Potential costs

It is costly for territorial species to physically travel to and from roosts, and in leaving their territories they open themselves up to takeovers. Communal roosts may draw the attention of potential predators, as the roost becomes audibly and visibly more conspicuous due to the number of members. There is also a decrease in the local food supply as a greater number of members results in competition for food. [4] A large number of roost members can also increases the exposure to droppings, causing plumage to deteriorate and leaving birds vulnerable to dying from exposure as droppings reduce the ability of feathers to shed water. [8]

Examples by species

Birds

Rooks forming a nocturnal roost in Hungary Corvus frugilegus sundown.JPG
Rooks forming a nocturnal roost in Hungary
Western Cattle Egret night roosting in Morocco Djocoe oujheas as vatches cipres did lon.jpg
Western Cattle Egret night roosting in Morocco

Communal roosting has been observed in numerous avian species. As previously mentioned, rooks ( Corvus frugilegus ) are known to form large nocturnal roosts, these roosts can contain anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand individuals. [15] [16] These roosts then disband at daybreak when the birds return to foraging activities. Studies have shown that communal roosting behavior is mediated by light intensity, which is correlated with sunset, where rooks will return to the roost when the ambient light has sufficiently dimmed. [15]

Acorn woodpeckers ( Melanerpes formicivorus ) are known to form communal roosts during the winter months. In these roosts two to three individuals will share a cavity during the winter. Within these tree cavities woodpeckers share their body heat with each other and therefore decrease the thermoregulatory demands on the individuals within the roost. [17] Small scale communal roosting during the winter months has also been observed in Green Woodhoopoes (Phoeniculus purpureus). Winter communal roosts in these species typically contain around five individuals. [18]

Tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) located in southeastern Louisiana are known to form nocturnal communal roosts and have been shown to exhibit high roost fidelity, with individuals often returning to the same roost they had occupied on the previous night. Research has shown that swallows form communal roosts due to the combined factors of conspecific attraction, where individual swallows are likely to aggregate around other swallows of the same species, and roost fidelity. [19] Tree swallows will form roosts numbering in hundreds or thousands of individuals. [20]

Eurasian crag martins (Ptyonoprogne rupestris) also form large nocturnal communal roosts during the winter months. Up to 12,000 individuals have been found roosting communally at the Gorham's Cave Complex in Gibraltar. As with the tree swallows, research has shown that Eurasian crag martins also exhibit a high degree of fidelity to the roost, with individuals returning to the same caves within and between years. [21]

Red-billed choughs (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) roost in what has been classified as either a main roost or a sub roost. Main roosts are constantly in use, whereas the sub roosts are used irregularly by individuals lacking both a mate and territory. These sub roosts are believed to help improve the ability of non-breeding choughs to find a mate and increase their territory ranges. [14]

Interspecies roosts have been observed between different bird species. In San Blas, Mexico, the great egret ( Ardea alba ), the little blue heron ( Egretta caerulea ), the tricolored heron ( Egretta tricolor ), and the snowy egret ( Egretta thula ) are known to form large communal roosts. It has been shown that the snowy egret determines the general location of the roost due to the fact that the other three species rely on it for its abilities to find food sources. In these roosts there is often a hierarchical system, where the more dominant species (in this case the snowy egret) will typically occupy the more desirable higher perches. [22] Interspecies roosts have also been observed among other avian species. [23] [24]

Insects

Zebra Longwing butterflies (Heliconius charitonius) sleeping in a nocturnal communal roost. Zebra Butterflies 14.jpg
Zebra Longwing butterflies ( Heliconius charitonius ) sleeping in a nocturnal communal roost.

Communal roosting has also been well documented among insects, particularly butterflies. The passion-vine butterfly ( Heliconius erato) is known to form nocturnal roosts, typically comprising four individuals. It is believed that these roosts deter potential predators due to the fact that predators attack roosts less often than they do individuals. [1]

Communal roosting behavior has also been observed in the neotropical zebra longwing butterfly ( Heliconius charitonius ) in the La Cinchona region of Costa Rica. A study of this roost showed that individuals vary in their roost fidelity, and that they tend to form smaller sub roosts. The same study observed that in this region communal roosting can be mediated by heavy rainfall. [3]

Communal roosting has also been observed in south Peruvian tiger beetles of the subfamily Cicindelidae . These species of tiger beetle have been observed to form communal roosts comprising anywhere from two to nine individuals at night and disbanding during the day. It is hypothesized that these beetles roost high in the treetops in order to avoid ground-based predators. [25]

Mammals

While there are few observations of communal roosting mammals, the trait has been seen in several species of bats. The little brown bat ( Myotis lucifugus ) is known to participate in communal roosts of up to thirty seven during cold nights in order to decrease thermoregulatory demands, with the roost disbanding at daybreak. [26]

Several other species of bats, including the hoary bat ( Lasiurus cinereus ) and the big brown bat ( Eptesicus fuscus ) have also been observed to roost communally in maternal colonies in order to reduce the thermoregulatory demands on both the lactating mothers and juveniles. [27] [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foraging</span> Searching for wild food resources

Foraging is searching for wild food resources. It affects an animal's fitness because it plays an important role in an animal's ability to survive and reproduce. Foraging theory is a branch of behavioral ecology that studies the foraging behavior of animals in response to the environment where the animal lives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scaly-breasted munia</span> Species of bird native to South and Southeast Asia

The scaly-breasted munia or spotted munia, known in the pet trade as nutmeg mannikin or spice finch, is a sparrow-sized estrildid finch native to tropical Asia. A species of the genus Lonchura, it was formally described and named by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. Its name is based on the distinct scale-like feather markings on the breast and belly. The adult is brown above and has a dark conical bill. The species has 11 subspecies across its range, which differ slightly in size and color.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Herd</span> Similar as Group

A herd is a social group of certain animals of the same species, either wild or domestic. The form of collective animal behavior associated with this is called herding. These animals are known as gregarious animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chacma baboon</span> Species of baboon from the Old World monkey family

The chacma baboon, also known as the Cape baboon, is, like all other baboons, from the Old World monkey family. It is one of the largest of all monkeys. Located primarily in southern Africa, the chacma baboon has a wide variety of social behaviours, including a dominance hierarchy, collective foraging, adoption of young by females, and friendship pairings. These behaviors form parts of a complex evolutionary ecology. In general, the species is not threatened, but human population pressure has increased contact between humans and baboons. Hunting, trapping, and accidents kill or remove many baboons from the wild, thereby reducing baboon numbers and disrupting their social structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siberian jay</span> Species of bird

The Siberian jay is a small jay with a widespread distribution within the coniferous forests in North Eurasia. It has grey-brown plumage with a darker brown crown and a paler throat. It is rusty-red in a panel near the wing-bend, on the undertail coverts and on the sides of the tail. The sexes are similar. Although its habitat is being fragmented, it is a common bird with a very wide range so the International Union for Conservation of Nature has assessed its conservation status as being of "least concern".

<i>Heliconius erato</i> Species of butterfly

Heliconius erato, or the red postman, is one of about 40 neotropical species of butterfly belonging to the genus Heliconius. It is also commonly known as the small postman, the red passion flower butterfly, or the crimson-patched longwing. It was described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greater noctule bat</span> Species of bat

The greater noctule bat is a rare carnivorous bat found in Europe, West Asia, and North Africa. It is the largest and least studied bat in Europe with a wingspan of up to 46 centimetres (18 in) and is one of the few bat species to feed on passerine birds. Greater noctule bats are the only bat species to hunt birds on the wing rather than when roosting. The greater noctule bat has wings adapted for open-air hunting and uses echolocation frequencies above the hearing range of birds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannibalism</span> Consuming another individual of the same species as food

Cannibalism is the act of consuming another individual of the same species as food. Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded in more than 1,500 species. Human cannibalism is well documented, both in ancient and in recent times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flock (birds)</span>

A flock is a gathering of individual birds to forage or travel collectively. Avian flocks are typically associated with migration. Flocking also offers foraging benefits and protection from predators, although flocking can have costs for individual members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mobbing (animal behavior)</span> Antipredator adaptation in which individuals of prey species mob a predator

Mobbing in animals is an antipredator adaptation in which individuals of prey species mob a predator by cooperatively attacking or harassing it, usually to protect their offspring. A simple definition of mobbing is an assemblage of individuals around a potentially dangerous predator. This is most frequently seen in birds, though it is also known to occur in many other animals such as the meerkat and some bovines. While mobbing has evolved independently in many species, it only tends to be present in those whose young are frequently preyed upon. This behavior may complement cryptic adaptations in the offspring themselves, such as camouflage and hiding. Mobbing calls may be used to summon nearby individuals to cooperate in the attack.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bird colony</span> Large congregation of birds at a particular location

A bird colony is a large congregation of individuals of one or more species of bird that nest or roost in proximity at a particular location. Many kinds of birds are known to congregate in groups of varying size; a congregation of nesting birds is called a breeding colony. Colonial nesting birds include seabirds such as auks and albatrosses; wetland species such as herons; and a few passerines such as weaverbirds, certain blackbirds, and some swallows. A group of birds congregating for rest is called a communal roost. Evidence of colonial nesting has been found in non-neornithine birds (Enantiornithes), in sediments from the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Romania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Distraction display</span>

Distraction displays, also known as diversionary displays, or paratrepsis are anti-predator behaviors used to attract the attention of an enemy away from something, typically the nest or young, that is being protected by a parent. Distraction displays are sometimes classified more generically under "nest protection behaviors" along with aggressive displays such as mobbing. These displays have been studied most extensively in bird species, but also have been documented in populations of stickleback fish and in some mammal species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rook (bird)</span> Species of bird in the crow family Corvidae

The rook is a member of the family Corvidae in the passerine order of birds. It is found in the Palearctic, its range extending from Scandinavia and western Europe to eastern Siberia. It is a large, gregarious, black-feathered bird, distinguished from similar species by the whitish featherless area on the face. Rooks nest collectively in the tops of tall trees, often close to farms or villages, the groups of nests being known as rookeries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective animal behavior</span> Animal cognition

Collective animal behaviour is a form of social behavior involving the coordinated behavior of large groups of similar animals as well as emergent properties of these groups. This can include the costs and benefits of group membership, the transfer of information, decision-making process, locomotion and synchronization of the group. Studying the principles of collective animal behavior has relevance to human engineering problems through the philosophy of biomimetics. For instance, determining the rules by which an individual animal navigates relative to its neighbors in a group can lead to advances in the deployment and control of groups of swimming or flying micro-robots such as UAVs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Begging in animals</span>

Begging in animals is when an animal solicits being given resources by another animal. This is usually a young animal soliciting food from their parents, brood hosts or other adults. However, the resource is sometimes non-food related or may be solicited by adult animals. Begging behavior is most widely studied in birds, however, mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates perform begging displays. Generally in food solicitation, begging behavior is instinctive, although in some instances it is learned.

Vigilance, in the field of behavioural ecology, refers to an animal's monitoring of its surroundings in order to heighten awareness of predator presence. Vigilance is an important behaviour during foraging as animals must often venture away from the safety of shelter to find food. However, being vigilant comes at the expense of time spent feeding, so there is a trade-off between the two. The length of time animals devote to vigilance is dependent on many factors including predation risk and hunger.

<i>Agelaia vicina</i> Species of wasp

Agelaia vicina is a species of wasp in the genus Agelaia. They are neotropical social wasps known to have the largest colony sizes and nest sizes among social wasps, with some colonies exceeding over one million individuals. They are predators of land arthropods, consuming both insects and spiders alike. Recent sperm morphology studies have shown that although Vespidae belong to the superfamily Vespoidea, A. vicina may be more phylogenetically related to Apoidea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pursuit predation</span> Hunting strategy by some predators

Pursuit predation is a form of predation in which predators actively give chase to their prey, either solitarily or as a group. It is an alternate predation strategy to ambush predation — pursuit predators rely on superior speed, endurance and/or teamwork to seize the prey, while ambush predators use concealment, luring, exploiting of surroundings and the element of surprise to capture the prey. While the two patterns of predation are not mutually exclusive, morphological differences in an organism's body plan can create an evolutionary bias favoring either type of predation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allofeeding</span>

Allofeeding is a type of food sharing behaviour observed in cooperatively breeding species of birds. Allofeeding refers to a parent, sibling or unrelated adult bird feeding altricial hatchlings, which are dependent on parental care for their survival. Allofeeding also refers to food sharing between adults of the same species. Allofeeding can occur between mates during mating rituals, courtship, egg laying or incubation, between peers of the same species, or as a form of parental care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Information centre hypothesis</span>

The information centre hypothesis (ICH) is a theory that states bird species live in communal roosts primarily for the advantage of gaining information from others in the community regarding the location of unevenly distributed food resources. This hypothesis was first proposed by Peter Ward and Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi (1973). They stated that birds join assemblages in order to gain information about food resources and increase foraging efficiency. Using this strategy would allow unsuccessful birds to return to the population and gain information, often by observing behavioural differences in successful birds. Following the exchange of knowledge, the unsuccessful individuals then follow those deemed successful back to the resource location.

References

  1. 1 2 Finkbeiner, Susan D., Adriana D. Briscoe, and Robert D. Reed. "The benefit of being a social butterfly: communal roosting deters predation." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 2012; 279(1739): 2769–2776.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Richner, Heinz; Heeb, Phillip (March 1996). "Communal life: Honest signaling and the recruitment center hypothesis" (PDF). Behavioral Ecology. 7: 115–118. doi: 10.1093/beheco/7.1.115 .
  3. 1 2 Young, Allen M., and Mary Ellen Carolan. "Daily instability of communal roosting in the neotropical butterfly Heliconius charitonius (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae)." Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society(1976): 346-359.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Beauchamp, Guy (1999). "The evolution of communal roosting in birds: origin and secondary losses". Behavioral Ecology. 10 (6): 675–687. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.6.675 .
  5. ↑ Pérez-García, Juan (2012). "The use of digital photography in censuses of large concentrations of passerines: the case of a winter starling roost-site" (PDF). Revista Catalana d'Ornitologia.
  6. ↑ Ientile, Renzo (2014). "Year-round used large communal roosts of Black-billed Magpie Pica pica in an urban habitat". Avocetta.
  7. 1 2 Ward, Peter; Zahavi, Amotz (1973). "The importance of certain assemblages of birds as "Information -Centres" for food finding". Ibis. 115 (4): 517–534. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.1973.tb01990.x.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Weatherhead, Patrick (February 1983). "Two Principal Strategies in Avian Communal Roosts". The American Naturalist. 121 (2): 237–247. doi:10.1086/284053. JSTOR   2461125. S2CID   222329456.
  9. 1 2 Swingland, Ian R. (August 1977). "The social and spatial organization of winter communal roosting in Rooks (Corvus frugilegus)". Journal of Zoology. 182 (4): 509–528. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04167.x.
  10. ↑ Weatherhead, Patrick J., and Drew J. Hoysak. "Dominance structuring of a red-winged blackbird roost." The Auk (1984): 551-555.
  11. 1 2 Danchin, Etienne; Richner, Heinz (2001). "Viable and unviable hypotheses for the evolution of raven roosts". Animal Behaviour. 61: F7–F11.
  12. ↑ Vidya, T. N. C.; Lakshman, Abhilash; Arvind, Chiti; Zenia; Ganguly, Payel; Sarangi, Manaswini (2014-08-14). "Common Myna Roosts Are Not Recruitment Centres". PLOS ONE. 9 (8): e103406. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j3406S. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103406 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4133212 . PMID   25122467.
  13. ↑ Dall, Sasha R. X. (2002-01-01). "Can information sharing explain recruitment to food from communal roosts?". Behavioral Ecology. 13 (1): 42–51. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.1.42 . ISSN   1045-2249.
  14. 1 2 Blanco, Guillermo; Tella, Jose L. (1999). "Temporal, spatial and social segregation of red-billed choughs between two types of communal roost: a role for mating and territory acquisition". Animal Behaviour. 57 (6): 1219–1227. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1103. PMID   10373254. S2CID   7254376.
  15. 1 2 Swingland, Ian R (1976). "The influence of light intensity on the roosting times of the Rook (Corvus frugilegus)". Animal Behaviour. 24 (1): 154–158. doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(76)80109-1. S2CID   53154891.
  16. ↑ Coombs, C. J. F. (1961). "Rookeries and roosts of the rook and jackdaw in South-West Cornwall". Bird Study. 8 (2): 55–70. doi:10.1080/00063656109475989.
  17. ↑ Plessis; Morné, A.; Weathers, Wesley W.; Koenig, Walter D. (1994). "Energetic benefits of communal roosting by acorn woodpeckers during the nonbreeding season". Condor. 1994 (3): 631–637. doi:10.2307/1369466. JSTOR   1369466.
  18. ↑ Du Plessis, Morné A.; Williams, Joseph B. (1994). "Communal cavity roosting in green woodhoopoes: consequences for energy expenditure and the seasonal pattern of mortality". The Auk. 1994 (2): 292–299. doi: 10.2307/4088594 . JSTOR   4088594.
  19. ↑ Laughlin, A. J.; Sheldon, D. R.; Winkler, D. W.; Taylor, C. M. (2014). "Behavioral Drivers of Communal Roosting in a Songbird: A Combined Theoretical and Empirical Approach". Behavioral Ecology. 25 (4): 734–43. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru044 .
  20. ↑ "Tree Swallow". Cornell University. Retrieved November 16, 2015.
  21. ↑ Bensusan, Keith; Holmes, Tyson Lee; Perez, Charles; Finlayson, Geraldine; Finlayson, Stewart; Guillem, Rhian; Finlayson, Clive (2021-08-19). "Crag Martin neontology complements taphonomy at the Gorham's Cave Complex". Scientific Reports . 11 (16851): 16851. Bibcode:2021NatSR..1116851B. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95974-9 . PMC   8377064 . PMID   34413328.
  22. ↑ Burger, J.; et al. "Intraspecific and interspecific interactions at a mixed species roost of ciconiiformes in San Blas, Mexico". Biology of Behaviour. 1977: 309–327.
  23. ↑ Burger, Joanna. "A model for the evolution of mixed-species colonies of Ciconiiformes." Quarterly Review of Biology (1981): 143-167.
  24. ↑ Munn, Charles A.; Terborgh, John W. (1979). "Multi-species territoriality in Neotropical foraging flocks". Condor. 1979 (4): 338–347. doi:10.2307/1366956. JSTOR   1366956.
  25. ↑ Pearson, David L., and Joseph J. Anderson. "Perching heights and nocturnal communal roosts of some tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in southeastern Peru." Biotropica (1985): 126-129.
  26. ↑ Barclay, Robert MR (1982). "Night roosting behavior of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus". Journal of Mammalogy. 63 (3): 464–474. doi:10.2307/1380444. JSTOR   1380444.
  27. ↑ Klug, Brandon J.; Barclay, Robert MR (2013). "Thermoregulation during reproduction in the solitary, foliage-roosting hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)". Journal of Mammalogy. 94 (2): 477–487. doi: 10.1644/12-mamm-a-178.1 .
  28. ↑ Agosta, Salvatore J (2002). "Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) in North America: a case for conserving an abundant species". Mammal Review. 32 (3): 179–198. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2002.00103.x.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.