Consumo potencial de las palomitas

This first application of our EEE and AIG classification schemes provided results for three groups of vertebrates. For bird species, for which we had a higher number of records than for mammals and amphibians, we have demonstrated clear relationships between EEE and AIG, population trend and EEE, and population trend and AIG. Birds were in many ways the most convenient subset to work with, as they (i) showed the most diverse changes in types of behavior, (ii) had most species diversity and (iii) their EEE scores were most balanced. The sample size of birds with 39 records of behavioral change was roughly the number of records in mammals and amphibians combined. Further analyses will have to be performed with different datasets to see if the results of birds can be reproduced in other taxa and under which circumstances. The distinction between food-type and technical innovations, which inspired our AIG classification, was also designed for and applied to birds.

While our EEE classification scheme, including its integrated questions (Figure 3.2), is based on various discussions and pre-analyses, additional questions can, of course, be added to make it more detailed and adapt it for specific purposes. We do not believe, however, that a distinctly more complicated catalogue of questions would generally be a good way forward, as it would require very detailed knowledge of both species that will often be impossible to obtain, e.g. for rare or understudied species. Our approach was to design a ready-to-use simple framework that still has predictive power in terms of how a non-native species will affect a native species. Its application can lead to swifter action in order to protect species threatened by invasion, and to a more diverse and quantifiable analysis of animal innovation.

The (A)IG innovation scheme can also be applied in other studies of animal behavior. Compared to previous studies (e.g. Overington et al. 2009), we extended the range of types of behavior that are now easy to score. The (A)IG scheme can be used for future comparative or correlational analyses of innovation. In Ruland and Jeschke (submitted), we showed that less than half of the types of behavioral changes observed during species invasions fit the feeding category. Studying only cases of this category leaves an estimated 60% of changes of behavior untapped, a source of data we hope will be exploited using the (A)IG classification scheme. The search for big innovations will be easier if a larger set of data can be tapped using the (A)IG scheme, and high scoring records can be studied more intensely thereafter. Applying the (A)IG classification to invertebrates and species that are usually missed when looking for innovative behavior

References

Banks PB, Dickman CR. 2007. Alien predation and the effects of multiple levels of prey naiveté. Trends Ecol Evol. 22(5):229–230. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.02.006.

Berthon K. 2015. How do native species respond to invaders? Mechanistic and trait-based perspectives. Biol Invasions. 17(8):2199–2211. doi:10.1007/s10530-015-0874-7.

Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Duncan RP, Evans KL, Gaston KJ. 2004. Avian extinction and mammalian introductions on oceanic islands. Science. 305(5692):1955–1958. doi:10.1126/science.1107333.

Canty, A. and Ripley, B (2017). boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3-20.

Carthey AJR, Banks PB. 2014. Naiveté in novel ecological interactions: Lessons from theory and experimental evidence. Biol Rev. 89:932–949. doi:10.1111/brv.12087.

Cicchetti D V. 1994. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess.(4):284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284

Davison, A. C. & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-57391-2

Ducatez S, Audet JN, Lefebvre L. 2014. Problem-solving and learning in Carib grackles: individuals show a consistent speed-accuracy trade-off. Anim Cogn. 18(2):485–496. doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0817-1.

Encyclopedia of Life. URL: https://eol.org/ (last accessed: 2018-08-30).

Griffin AS, Guez D. 2014. Innovation and problem solving: A review of common mechanisms. Behav Processes. 109(PB):121–134. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.027.

Hendry AP. 2016. Key questions on the role of phenotypic plasticity in eco-evolutionary dynamics. J Hered. 107(1):25–41. doi:10.1093/jhered/esv060.

Holway D a., Suarez A V. 1999. Animal behavior: An essential component of invasion biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 14(99):328–330. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01636-5.

IUCN Global Species Programme – Red List Unit. Version 3, Cambridge, United Kingdom. URL: https:// www.iucnredlist.org/ (last accessed: 2018-08-30).

Keller, R. P., M. W. Cadotte, G. Sandiford. 2015. Invasive species in a globalized world. University of Chicago Press

Kondoh, M. 2006. Contact experience, alien-native interactions, and their community consequences: a theoretical consideration on the role of adaptation in biological invasions. In: Cadotte, M. W., S. M. McMahon, T. Fukami (Eds.) Conceptual ecology and invasion biology. Springer, Dordrecht, 225-242.

Kummer H, Goodall J. 1985. Conditions of Innovative Behaviour in Primates. R Soc London. 308(1135):203–214. doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0020

Lefebvre L, Whittle P, Lascaris E. 1997. Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds. Anim Behav. (1983):549–560. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0330

Levin E, Barnea A., Yovel Y, Yom-Tov Y. 2006. Have introduced fish initiated piscivory among the long- fingered bat? Mamm Biol. 71(3):139–143. doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2006.01.002.

Linstone HA, Turoff M (eds.), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications; vol. 29. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Logan CJ. 2016. How far will a behaviourally flexible invasive bird go to innovate? R Soc open sci. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160247.

Mella VS a, Cooper CE, Davies SJJF. 2010. Predator odour does not influence trappability of southern brown bandicoots (Isoodon obesulus) and common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Aust J Zool. 58(5):267–272. doi:10.1071/ZO10049.

Moran E V., Alexander JM. 2014. Evolutionary responses to global change: Lessons from invasive species. Ecol Lett. 17(5):637–649. doi:10.1111/ele.12262.

Namgail T, Fox JL, Bhatnagar YV. 2007. Habitat shift and time budget of the Tibetan argali: The influence of livestock grazing. Ecol Res. 22(1):25–31. doi:10.1007/s11284-006-0015-y.

Ortega YK, Greenwood LF, Callaway RM, Pearson DE. 2014. Different responses of congeneric consumers to an exotic food resource: Who gets the novel resource prize? Biol Invasions. 16(8):1757–1767. doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0625-6.

Overington SE, Morand-Ferron J, Boogert NJ, Lefebvre L. 2009. Technical innovations drive the relationship between innovativeness and residual brain size in birds. Anim Behav. 78(4):1001–1010. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.033.

Pianka, E. R. 2000. Evolutionary ecology. Benjamin Cummings, Addison-Wesley-Longman, San Francisco, 528pp.

Polo-Cavia N, Gomez-Mestre I. 2014. Learned recognition of introduced predators determines survival of tadpole prey. Funct Ecol. 28(2):432–439. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12175.

Prentis PJ, Wilson JRU, Dormontt EE, Richardson DM, Lowe AJ. 2008. Adaptive evolution in invasive species. Trends Plant Sci. 13(6):288–94. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2008.03.004.

Pujol-Buxó E, San Sebastián O, Garriga N, Llorente G a. 2013. How does the invasive/native nature of species influence tadpoles’ plastic responses to predators? Oikos. 122(1):19–29. doi:10.1111/j.1600- 0706.2012.20617.x.

Ramsey G, Bastian ML, van Schaik C. 2007. Animal innovation defined and operationalized. Behav Brain Sci. 30(4):393–407; discussion 407-32. doi:10.1017/S0140525X07002373.

Reader SM, Laland KN. 2002. Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 99(7):4436–4441. doi:10.1073/pnas.062041299.

Root RB. 1967. The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher. Ecol Monogr. 37(4):317– 350. doi:doi.org/10.2307/1942327.

Saul W-C, Jeschke JM, Heger T. 2013. The role of eco-evolutionary experience in invasion success. NeoBiota. 17:57–74. doi:10.3897/neobiota.17.5208.

Saul W-C, Jeschke JM. 2015. Eco-evolutionary experience in novel species interactions. Ecol Lett. 18(3):236–245. doi:10.1111/ele.12408.

Schlaepfer MA, Sherman PW, Blossey B, Runge MC. 2005. Introduced species as evolutionary traps. Ecol Lett. 8(3):241–246. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00730.x.

Sih A. 2013. Understanding variation in behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change: A conceptual overview. Anim Behav. 85(5):1077–1088. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.02.017.

Slater, P. J. B., & Lachlan, R. F. (2003). Is innovation in bird song adaptive? In S. M. Reader & K. N. Laland (Eds.), Animal innovation (pp. 117-135). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Sol D, Lefebvre L. 2000. Behavioural Flexibility Predicts Invasion Success in Birds Introduced to New Zealand. Oikos. 90(3):599–605.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900317.x

Sol D, Maspons J, Vall-Llosera M, Bartomeus I, García-Peña GE, Piñol J, Freckleton RP. 2012. Unraveling the life history of successful invaders (Supplementary Material). Science. 337(6094):580–3. doi:10.1126/science.1221523.

Steindler LA, Blumstein DT, West R, Moseby KE, Letnic M. 2018. Discrimination of introduced predators by ontogenetically naïve prey scales with duration of shared evolutionary history. Anim Behav. 137:133–139. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.01.013.

Vanderwerf E a. 2012. Evolution of Nesting Height in an Endangered Hawaiian Forest Bird in Response to a Non-Native Predator. Conserv Biol. 26(5):905–911. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01877.x.

Wlodarczyk R, Janiszewski T. 2014. Can expansion of Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha (Bivalvia) influence the numbers and behaviour of traditionally herbivorous mute swan, Cygnus olor (Aves)? Acta Zool Bulg. 66(2):235–238.

Wolak, M.E., Fairbairn,D.J., Paulsen, Y.R. (2012). Guidelines for Estimating Repeatability. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3(1):129-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00125.x

Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2015. Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav Ecol. 26(3):665– 673. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru183.

Wright TF, Eberhard JR, Hobson E a., Avery ML, Russello M a. 2010. Behavioral flexibility and species invasions: the adaptive flexibility hypothesis. Ethol Ecol Evol. 22(4):393–404. doi:10.1080/03949370.2010.505580.

Chapter 4: Climate and predator presence drive nest site and

number of the common eider (Somateria mollissima) in West

Iceland

In preparation as:

Jónsson JE, Ásgeirsson A, Ruland F. Climate and predator presence drive nest site and number of the common eider (Somateria mollissima) in West Iceland.

Abstract

The Northern Atlantic avifauna is highly dependent on resources from the sea due to low terrestrial productivity and therefore breeding success is dependent on climatic processes. At the same time, high breeding densities make colonies attractive targets for nest predation by terrestrial predators. The common eider (Somateria mollissima) commonly breeds on islands in Breiðafjörður in West Iceland the moste remote of which offer safety from predation by the native Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus). In the 1930s, the American mink (Neovison vison) was introduced and spread in the area in the late 1940s. We used data from two archipelagos, Brokey (95 islands with data from 1892-2014) and Purkey (39 islands from 1986-2012) to quantify the effect of climate fluctuations and predator presence on nest numbers. Our results show, how eider breeding corresponded to resource availability approximated by the Atlantic-multidecadal oscillation index (AMO) until numbers were suppressed by the mink invasion. Furthermore, we show that nest relocation to isolated islands is an effective strategy against the native arctic fox but does not buffer adverse effects of mink predation. When predators colonize a given archipelago, condensing nesting into safe islands (inaccessible to predators) may be the only option to maintain a colony.Our study shows how eco- evolutionary experience can shape the outcome of native species responses to invasion.

Introduction

The ways in which humans shape ecosystems worldwide are diverse, fast and drastic with species introductions being among the most important factors threatening local biodiversity. It is often difficult to disentangle these processes, as chlimate change happens simultaneously with species introductions and for the latter often data of the ecosystem from before the introduction are lacking. The North Atlantic, a large and threatened ecosystem, is undergoing a period of climatic change while simultaneously species are moving northward. Within lies the relatively young volcanic island Iceland is a distinct ecosystem more than 300 km from the next landmass. Its terrestrial productivity is low but it is an important breeding ground for a large number of bird species due to highly productive waters around. That makes it 1) very sensitive to climatic changes, especially changes that affect marine biota and 2) vulnerable to introduction of terrestrial species by humans.