Data from: Functional traits, flocking propensity and perceived predation risk in an Amazonian understory bird community
Martínez, Ari E.
Gomez, Juan P.
Ponciano, Jose Miguel
Robinson, Scott K.
Published Jan 05, 2016 on Dryad.
Cite this dataset
Martínez, Ari E.; Gomez, Juan P.; Ponciano, Jose Miguel; Robinson, Scott K. (2016). Data from: Functional traits, flocking propensity and perceived predation risk in an Amazonian understory bird community [Dataset]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.18v4b
Within a community, different species might share similar predation risks, and thus the ability of species to signal and interpret heterospecific threat information may determine species' associations. We combined observational, experimental and phylogenetic approaches to determine the extent to which evolutionary history and functional traits determined flocking propensity and perceived predation risk (response to heterospecific alarm calls) in a lowland Amazonian bird community. We predicted that small birds that feed myopically and out in the open would have higher flocking propensities and account for a higher proportion of positive responses to alarms. Using generalized linear models and the incorporation of phylogeny on data from 56 species, our results suggest that phylogenetic relationships alongside body size, foraging height, vegetation density and response to alarm calls influence flocking propensity. Conversely, phylogenetic relationships did not influence
response to heterospecific alarm calls. Among functional traits, however, foraging strategy, foraging density and flocking propensity partially explained responses to alarm calls. Our results suggest that flocking propensity and perceived predation risk are positively related and that functional ecological traits and evolutionary history may explain certain species' associations.
Behavioral and morphological data and responses to alarm calls
This file combines data from Jullien and Thiollay 1998 with our data for estimations of flocking propensity (field data collected in 2011). Data on morphological and behavioral traits were either derived from the literature (foraging strategy, body mass) or collected from our observations in 2011 (Foraging height, Density, Distance to Alarm Calls).
The columns in the data set are the following:
Species=Name of species
Fyes=Number of times seen with a flock
Fno=Number of times not seen with a flock
Ntrials=Total number of trials
Propensity=Flocking propensity of each species based on proportion of observations in which species was observed flocking
Mass=Body Mass in grams
Height= Mean Height derived from observations across all individuals of species from alarm trials (data from 2011 only).
Density=Mean Density derived from observations across all individuals of species from alarm trials (data from 2011 only).
Fstrategy= Foraging strategies of each species
Distance=Mean distance across all individuals of a species from alarm playback trials (data from 2011 only).
Ayes=Number of positive responses of a species to alarm playback trials (data from 2011 only).
Ano=Number of negative responses of a species to alarm playback trials (data from 2011 only).
AlarmTrials=Total number of alarm playback trials per species (data from 2011 only).
ProbAlarm=Proportion of positive responses to alarms (data from 2011 only).
A.response= Characterizes a binomial response for each species where a species is classified as responding to alarm calls if it responds at least once irrespective of the number of trials.
The phylogenetic tree used in the analysis derived from Jetz et al. (2012).