Evidence for nest-odour recognition in two species of diving petrel
1 Behavioural Ecology Group, Centre d'Ecologie fonctionnelle et Evolutive,
CNRS, F-34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
2 Center for Animal Behavior and the Department of Neurobiology, Physiology
and Behaviour, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616,
USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: bonadonna{at}cefe.cnrs-mop.fr)
Accepted 17 July 2003
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: homing, orientation, olfaction, petrel, Pelecanoides urinatrix, Pelecanoides georgicus, olfactory recognition, Kerguelen archipelago
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Odours emanating from the burrow help birds locate the nest site when
returning under the cover of darkness. Arriving at night is critical to a
bird's survival since burrow-nesting petrels tend to be small and susceptible
to predation by skuas (Catharacta skua lönnbergi;
Stercorariidae; Mougeot et al.,
1998; Warham,
1996
; Thoresen,
1969
; Payne and Prince,
1979
). Birds find their burrow at night despite poorly developed
night vision (Brooke, 1989
;
Martin and Brooke, 1991
),
suggesting that cues other than those obtained visually may be important. The
characteristic smell of an individual's burrow is thought to assist returning
birds in relocating their burrow quickly and efficiently among the thousands
of others (Thibault and Holyoak,
1978
; Warham,
1996
).
The ability of individuals to recognise their burrow by smell has been
established in several species of petrels, including storm petrels
(Hydrobatidae), Cory's shearwaters (Calonectris diomedea), blue
petrels (Halobaena caerulea) and prions (Pachyptila spp.)
(Grubb, 1973,
1974
,
1979
;
Benvenuti et al., 1993
;
Minguez, 1997
;
Bonadonna et al., 2001
;
Bonadonna and Bretagnolle,
2002
). Bonadonna and Bretagnolle
(2002
), in particular,
highlighted that species returning to colonies at night need an intact sense
of smell to relocate their nest, whereas species that return during the day
relocate the nest even if they are experimentally rendered anosmic. It has
also been suggested that the olfactory signature of the nest is critical for
nest relocation [Antarctic prion (Pachyptila desolata),
Bonadonna et al., 2003
; blue
petrels (Halobaena caerulea),
Bonadonna et al., in press
).
Using T-maze techniques, these studies demonstrated that birds can
distinguish the odour of their own nest from that of a conspecific; however,
birds fail if odours are absent or if the sense of smell is blocked. Since
feathers and faeces are the primary bird-derived material found in the
burrows, these results collectively suggest that birds recognise a
burrow-specific odour for burrow recognition.
A group of burrow-nesting species that have not been studied with respect
to nest recognition are the diving petrels (Pelecanoididae). Researchers have
assumed that these birds have a poor sense of smell since they have relatively
small olfactory bulbs compared with other procellariiformes
(Bang and Cobb, 1968).
Specifically, the relative olfactory bulb ratios of 18, South-Georgian diving
petrels (Pelecanoides georgicus) and 23, common diving petrels
(Pelecanoides urinatrix) were the smallest measured in the
procellariiformes (Warham,
1996
). Diving petrels also fail to recruit to prey-related odours
at sea (Nevitt et al., 1995
;
Nevitt, 2000
). Additionally, a
recent study showed that `sleeping' common diving petrel chicks do not respond
to prey-related (dimethyl sulphide) and novel (phenyl ethyl alcohol)
odourants, suggesting a lack of sensitivity to odourants, at least at an early
age (Cunningham et al.,
2003
).
Our aim in the present study was to test the ability of two species of diving petrels to distinguish the odour of their own nest. An additional experiment on a species that uses olfaction both for foraging and for burrow locating was also performed for comparison.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In both field seasons, the maze had the same design and consisted of a box with two flexible, expandable, corrugated pipes (10 cm diameter) that were separated from the central chamber by a removable divider (Fig. 1). The first 20-30 cm of the two pipes were placed perpendicular to the box wall to reduce a possible visual effect on the choice.
|
Birds were captured and kept in a cloth bag during the arrangement of the maze. The subject's burrow was randomly assigned to either the left or the right arm of the maze. After the maze was set up, the bird was put in the box. Five minutes later, the divider was removed. The test ended when the bird arrived at the end of one pipe or after 15 min if the bird did not choose. The choice was assessed by the noise of the bird walking in the corrugated pipe. The time elapsing between the removal of the divider and the bird's choice was recorded. The protocol and the maze employed during the two field seasons had small differences as follows.
Mayes Island: December 2000 and January 2001
All the birds were tested while the mate was at sea to forage. The maze's
central chamber was a cardboard box measuring 20 cmx40 cmx20 cm.
In the case of thin-billed prions, one pipe was connected to the nest of the
subject bird and the second pipe to the nest of a conspecific neighbour. The
owner of the neighbouring nest was kept in a cloth bag far from the maze
during the whole experiment. Consequently, both burrows were empty during the
trial. In the case of common diving petrels, the second pipe was connected to
a box containing material from another common diving petrel nest. This was
necessary due to the difficulty of finding diving petrels' nests within a
reasonable distance. The length of the two pipes was similar within each
single trial and ranged between 50 cm and 130 cm depending on the position of
the nests. Tests were performed in the night-time for prions and in the
daytime for diving petrels. In the latter case, the apparatus was covered with
a thin black blanket to keep the box and the pipes in the dark.
Verte Island: January and December 2002
All the birds were tested while the mate was at sea to forage. All tests
took place at night. The maze's central chamber was a wooden box of 20
cmx47 cmx20 cm. The difficulty of finding South-Georgian diving
petrels' nests within a reasonable distance obliged us to modify the
experimental protocol for this species. All the experiments were performed at
least 4 m from the tested bird's nest, and both 30 cm-length pipes were closed
at the end with a metal dish containing nest material (from the tested bird
and from a conspecific neighbour).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
While a significant number of diving petrels were attracted to the scent of
their particular nests, many failed to choose an arm of the maze. This failure
to choose may reflect that diving petrels were more stressed by the
manipulation than thin-billed prions. When placed in the maze, most diving
petrels tended to huddle in a corner of the central chamber without moving,
whereas prions tended to always choose an arm. We have noted similar
behaviours when walking in the colony at night. When startled, diving petrels
tend to freeze while thin-billed prions and other larger burrowing petrels
tend to run away (F. Bonadonna, personal observation). This behaviour may
reflect different adaptations to avoid predation in colonies
(Mougeot et al., 1998;
Thoresen, 1969
;
Payne and Prince, 1979
). Since
diving petrels are darker in colour than thin-billed prions, they may be
better hidden from skuas if they remain immobile. Thus, a tendency to freeze
under stressful conditions may account for the differences recorded in the
percentage of no-choice between diving petrels and other burrowing petrels
that have been tested in this manner (Bonadonna et al.,
2003
,
in press
).
In terms of their natural history, diving petrels may be particularly well
adapted to finding their nests using their sense of smell. Diving petrels
commonly feed along the outer coasts of Kerguelen Island
(Bocher et al., 2000) and
return to the burrow for incubating shifts or to provision chicks. Arriving at
the burrow involves first locating the specific island within the bay, then
the general region of the island and then the specific burrow. A returning
bird could use a variety of other cues to assist with finding the burrow.
These include visual, auditory and spatial cues, such as knowledge of the
local topography. Although we do not know how much a bird relies upon each of
these sensory modalities, we believe that olfaction plays a large role at
close proximity to the burrow. Once an adult lands on the ground, they are at
high risk of predation and thus it is essential to find the burrow quickly.
Because survival depends on finding the burrow, diving petrels probably do not
use visual cues as the primary method to locate burrows. On Mayes and Verte
Islands, where the present study was conducted, for example, diving petrel
burrows are often located in areas that contain large amounts of the plant
Acaena magellanica (Rosaceae). These plants blanket the ground and
cover the entrance to many burrows (F. Bonadonna, personal observation). It is
unlikely that diving petrels are able to locate these burrows using visual
cues, particularly since birds return to the colonies at night. Behavioural
and anatomical data further suggest that these birds have relatively poor
night vision (Brooke, 1989
).
Indeed, researchers working in the colonies at night are often hit by flying
diving petrels, suggesting that diving petrels may be blind to objects even as
large as humans (F. Bonadonna, personal observation).
Alternatively, returning diving petrels could use acoustic information to
locate burrows, but we believe this to be unlikely. Although diving petrels
are vocal in their burrows at night, it is not known if they call to each
other or if mates use calls to guide returning partners to the burrow.
Furthermore, when depleted of reserves, incubating diving petrels will often
leave the burrow to forage before their mate returns
(Chaurand and Weimerskirch,
1994; Warham,
1996
). In this case, the incoming adult must locate an empty,
quiet nest. Relying solely upon acoustic information, therefore, may not allow
the bird to successfully find the burrow in an efficient fashion.
Additionally, since the burrows were empty during our experiments, birds could
not use acoustic information to make their choices.
Another possible method for arriving at the home burrow could be the use of
topological information, as suggested by Brooke
(1989). Evidence from our
experiment with South-Georgian diving petrels, however, suggests that they can
recognize the burrow even when its location has been manipulated. In this
case, birds were not being tested on their ability to return to their burrow
but their ability to go towards a metal dish located away from their burrow
that contained their specific burrow material. Other studies suggest that
positional cues alone are not enough for a petrel to find its burrow. For
example, in previous experiments, blue petrels and Antarctic prions were
tested with the arms of the maze pointing towards the burrows, but the arms
were closed off at the end. This prevented air from passing between the burrow
and the maze. In these studies, birds were unable to recognise home burrows,
suggesting that positional cues were not involved in burrow recognition
(Bonadonna et al., 2003
,
in press
). While these
experiments do not rule out the possibility that positional cues are used
under natural conditions, our experiments suggest that olfactory cues are
sufficient for identifying the home nest.
Taken together, these results suggest that diving petrels are able to recognise an olfactory signature of their own nest, suggesting that pheromonal, individual odour recognition or the ability to recognise a burrow odour is well developed in these species. Further experiments are needed to clarify the nature of this olfactory signature.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bang, B. G. and Cobb, S. (1968). The size of the olfactory bulb in 108 species of birds. Auk 85, 55-61.
Benvenuti, S., Ioalè, P. and Massa, B. (1993). Olfactory experiments on Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea): the effect of intranasal zinc sulphate treatment on short-range homing behaviour. Boll. Zool. 60,207 -210.
Bocher, P., Cherel, Y. and Hobson, K. A. (2000). Complete trophic segregation between South Georgian and common diving petrels during breeding at Iles Kerguelen. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 208,249 -264.
Bonadonna, F. and Bretagnolle, V. (2002). Smelling home: a good solution for burrow finding in nocturnal petrels? J. Exp. Biol. 205,2519 -2523.[Medline]
Bonadonna, F., Hesters, F. and Jouventin, P. (2003). Scent of a nest: discrimination of own-nest odours in Antarctic prions (Pachyptila desolata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54,167 -173.
Bonadonna, F., Spaggiari, J. and Weimerskirch, H.
(2001). Could osmotaxis explain the ability of blue petrels to
return to their burrows at night? J. Exp. Biol.
204,1485
-1489.
Bonadonna, F., Villafane, M., Bajzak, C. and Jouventin, P. (in press) Recognition of burrow's "olfactory signature" in blue petrels, Halobaena caerulea: an efficient discrimination mechanism in the dark. Anim. Behav.
Brooke, M. D. L. (1989). Determination of the absolute visual threshold of a nocturnal seabird, the common diving petrel Pelecanoides urinatrix. Ibis 131,290 -300.
Chaurand, T. and Weimerskirch, H. (1994). Incubation routine, body mass regulation and egg-neglect in the blue petrel Halobaena caerulea. Ibis 136,285 -290.
Cunningham, G. B., Van Buskirk, R. W., Bonadonna, F.,
Weimerskirch, H. and Nevitt, G. A. (2003). A comparison of
the olfactory abilities of three species of procellariiform chicks.
J. Exp. Biol. 206,1615
-1620.
Grubb, T. C. (1972). Smell and foraging in shearwaters and petrels. Nature 237,404 -405.
Grubb, T. C. (1973). Colony location by Leach's petrel. Auk 90,78 -82.
Grubb, T. C. (1974). Olfactory navigation to the nesting burrow in Leach's petrel (Oceanodroma leucorrhoa). Anim. Behav. 22,192 -202.[Medline]
Grubb, T. C. (1979). Olfactory guidance of Leach's storm petrel to the breeding island. Wilson Bull. 91,141 -143.
Hutchison, L. V. and Wenzel, B. M. (1980). Olfactory guidance in foraging by procellariiforms. Condor 82,314 -319.
Lequette, B., Verheyden, C. and Jouventin, P. (1989). Olfaction in sub-Antarctic seabirds: its phylogenetic and ecological significance. Condor 91,732 -735.
Martin, G. R. and Brooke, M. D. L. (1991). The eye of a procellariiform seabird, the Manx shearwater, Puffinus puffinus: visual fields and optical structure. Brain Behav. Evol. 37,65 -78.[Medline]
Minguez, E. (1997). Olfactory recognition by British storm-petrel chicks. Anim. Behav. 53,701 -707.[CrossRef]
Mougeot, F., Genevois, F. and Bretagnolle, V. (1998). Predation on burrowing petrels by the brown skua at Mayes islands, Kerguelen. J. Zool. Lond. 244,429 -438.
Nevitt, G. A. (2000). Olfactory foraging by
Antarctic procellariiform seabirds: life at high Reynolds numbers.
Biol. Bull. 198,245
-253.
Nevitt, G. A. and Haberman, K. (2003).
Behavioral attraction of Leach's storm-petrels (Oceanodroma
leucorhoa) to dimethyl sulfide. J. Exp. Biol.
206,1497
-1501.
Nevitt, G. A., Veit, R. R. and Kareiva, P. (1995). Dimethyl sulphide as a foraging cue for Antarctic procellariiform seabirds. Nature 376,680 -682.[CrossRef]
Payne, M. R. and Prince, P. A. (1979). Identification and breeding biology of the diving petrels Pelecanoides georgicus and P. urinatrix exsul at South Georgia. N.Z. J. Zool. 6,299 -318.
Thibault, J. C. and Holyoak, D. T. (1978). Vocal and olfactory displays in the petrel genera Bulweria and Pterodroma. Ardea 66, 53-56.
Thoresen, A. C. (1969). Observations on the breeding behaviour of the diving petrel (Pelecanoides u. urinatrix, Gmelin). Notornis 16,241 -260.
Verheyden, C. and Jouventin, P. (1994). Olfactory behavior of foraging procellariiformes. Auk 111,285 -291.
Warham, J. (1996). The Behaviour, Population Biology and Physiology of the Petrels. London: Academic Press.