Common or Lesser Kestrel (1 Viewer)

[tconzemi]

I suppose there is a history of persecution from say 100 years back and so I'd imagine they've learned from that past experience.

I guess it is less about learning and more about gene selection: kill them for more than a century and only the shy ones will survive

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I guess it is less about learning and more about gene selection: kill them for more than a century and only the shy ones will survive

That's my take on it too, Tom. Those that have learnt the lesson didn't live to tell the tale.

 

[Earnest lad]

When I was at Sharm in 2010 I hired a taxi for the big trips (st Catherine's, Ras Mohammed and Nabq Protectorate, driven by a Bedouin called Hussein, who couldn't have been more helpful. At Nabq, he dropped my off at the north end of the mangroves, opposite the Maria Schroeder shipwreck and arranged to meet me at the south end once I'd made my way around the mangroves on foot. As I made my way round I saw Hussein overtake me in his taxi as he made his way to a friend's bedouin hut (where we had tea and a snack made by his friend of chicken cooked in chickpeas - tasty and totally unexpected, although the unleavened bread we used to scoop up the chicken & chickpeas, baked under the charcoal of a fire the size of my hat was as hard as a quarry tile).

When I approached the hut, I saw an osprey flying along the beach towards it. Then it landed on a nest on which its mate was incubating. The nest was in a device that reminded me of a metal milk crate and mounted on a low pole, only about 50 m or less from the hut. Those ospreys just didn't give a stuff about proximity to people.

Photos below of the Bedouin hut where I dined (with my scope & tripod to the left of it) and the osprey nest, only metres away, with the mountains of Saudi Arabia in the distance.

Thank you for sharing. This Nabq Protected Area, I felt, was a wonderful place. There were no tourists at all apart from myself, and it must be what 30 square miles in size. I recommend it to anyone

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I guess it is less about learning and more about gene selection: kill them for more than a century and only the shy ones will survive

Quite possible, Tom, but then again do the shyer birds prioritise their own survival over that of their offspring, while the bolder birds do the opposite?

 

[Butty]

do the shyer birds prioritise their own survival over that of their offspring, while the bolder birds do the opposite?

There's no such dichotomy. If a bird is inappropriately shy, that may be detrimental to its own survival due to reduced feeding opportunities - but it will also reduce its ability to breed and reduce the survival of its young if it does breed. If, on the other hand, a bird is inappropriately bold it's more likely to get shot, and thus it won't be able to breed or won't to be able to feed its young if it does breed. Thus there is no decision to choose behaviour which favours the adult bird rather than its offspring or vice versa. And of course the ultimate driver of selection is not promoting survival of adult or offspring but whatever ensures the maximum number of the individual's genes in future generations.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

If the adult survives at the expense of their offspring, there's a chance of a future generation in the following breeding season.

If the adult sacrifices itself for its offspring (a completely uncertain outcome in the moments leading up to the sacrifice, when the adult would have to make the decision), then the chicks die in the nest anyway either from the predator still feeling hungry; or starvation, if a surviving parent is unable to feed them, in which case their offspring have died anyway, and there's no adult to carry on next season.

A parent sacrificing itself for its dependent offspring in a wild situation makes no survival sense at all. An adult sacrificing itself for chicks that are grown enough to be independent makes even less sense, because they need to learn how to fend for themselves. That's why multiple eggs are laid. The vast majority of young birds never make it into their second year. Birds such as plovers will feign injury to lure a predator away from a nest, but when push comes to shove, the plover realises it's sink or swim, flies off to safety and the nest either survives and the lure has been successful, or the eggs or chicks are taken, in which case it's time for the adult to go for another generation.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

There's no such dichotomy. Thus there is no decision to choose behaviour which favours the adult bird rather than its offspring or vice versa.

Field studies suggest otherwise, although the authors acknowledge that field based empirical evidence is in its infancy and there is a need for further research.

Here is an article published in The Royal Society, underpinned by empirical study, and so presumably peer reviewed.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262341940_Shy_birds_play_it_safe_personality_in_captivity_predicts_risk_responsiveness_during_reproduction_in_the_wild

Despite a growing body of evidence linking personality to life-history variation and fitness, the behavioural mechanisms underlying these relationships remain poorly understood. One mechanism thought to play a key role is how individuals respond to risk. Relatively reactive and proactive (or shy and bold) personality types are expected to differ in how they manage the inherent trade-off between productivity and survival, with bold individuals being more risk-prone with lower survival probability, and shy individuals adopting a more risk-averse strategy.

These findings provide rare, field-based experimental evidence that shy individuals prioritize survival over reproductive investment, supporting the hypothesis that personality reflects life-history variation through links with risk responsiveness.

Our findings therefore suggest that when faced with risk owing to uncertainty, shy females may jeopardize their reproductive attempt, providing support for the theory that these individuals prioritize survival over current productivity, whereas bolder individuals do the opposite.

The results presented here represent rare, field-based support for the hypothesis that personality and reproductive life-history variation are linked through risk sensitivity. Furthermore, they support evidence from other studies in this species linking EB to risk responsiveness in a range of ecological contexts suggesting that personality is likely to have broad significance for risk management strategies in animals.

At the very least, it is open to debate.