Figures
Abstract
The behaviour of the nestlings of nocturnal cavity-nesting species has relatively rarely been studied in detail because of problems connected with use of the technical devices required to provide long-term monitoring of individuals. However, long-term observation of nestling behaviour is crucial in order to identify different types of behaviour which may be caused by sibling competition at the end of nesting period. We studied behaviour of 43 Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus) nestlings at 14 nests using a camera and a chip system. The nestlings perched at the nest box entrance from an average age of 28 days from hatching (range 24–34 days) until fledging, spending around 2 hours per day here in total, in periods ranging from a few seconds to 147 min (7.6±10.9 min, mean ± SD). We found that individual duration of perching at the nest box entrance was significantly influenced by nestlings' age and wing length and that the duration of perching at the nest box entrance significantly decreased with time of night. However, during daylight hours, time of day had no effect on either probability or duration of nestlings' perching. We suggest daylight perching at the nest box entrance results from nestlings' preparation for fledging, while individuals perching here during the night may gain an advantageous position for obtaining food from the parents; another possibility at all times of day is that nestlings can reaffirm their social dominance status by monopolizing the nest box entrance.
Citation: Kouba M, Bartoš L, Zárybnická M (2014) Perching of Tengmalm's Owl (Aegolius funereus) Nestlings at the Nest Box Entrance: Effect of Time of the Day, Age, Wing Length and Body Weight. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097504
Editor: Alexandre Roulin, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Received: February 3, 2014; Accepted: April 17, 2014; Published: May 14, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Kouba et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was supported by the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CIGA Grant No. 20104205 and 20144203), the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MŠMT 1321/213205), and Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (MZERO 0714). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
In bird species where parents deliver food to dependent young, there is frequently significant competition for resources (reviewed for example by [1]) and evidence is accumulating that parental provisioning behaviour can be influenced by nestlings' behaviour [2]–[6]. Altricial nestlings may improve their chances of being fed by seeking a particular position in the nest, reaching higher and closer to the visiting adult, and/or vocalizing first or with the greatest intensity (e.g., [5], [7]–[9]). Several studies on nestling behaviour show that advantageous position in the nest can improve a nestlings' chances, relative to those of its siblings, to obtain any food brought by the parents [7], [10]–[15]. Nestlings of cavity-nesting birds can improve their chances of obtaining food ahead of their siblings by positioning themselves as close as possible to the cavity entrance [16]–[18].
Such studies in owl nestlings are, however, scarce. Hofstetter & Ritchison [5] found out in Eastern Screech-owls (Asio otus) that the nestlings fed first by adults were those which started to beg significantly earlier, extended their beaks higher and closer to the adult, and called at higher rates and with greater volume than did their siblings. This result is in accordance with findings on vigilance of Barn owl (Tyto alba) nestlings by Roulin [19]. The more vigilant nestling was defined as the one that reacted first (i.e., that made a body movement) after a parent landed on the perch. These more vigilant individuals were as a rule fed first [19]. Because the extent of nestlings' potential activity is limited by their physical capabilities [20], [21], it is probable that their behavioural patterns and competition strategies will change with age. Thus, during the late nesting period when the nestlings are able to climb the wall from the nest floor to the nest entrance they may be able to perch at the entrance and wait for the parent there. Studies on such behaviour, especially in nocturnal birds of prey, are however lacking.
Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus) is strictly night-active bird of prey with one peak of activity during the night in northern latitudes and two peaks in temperate latitudes [22], [23]. Differences in activity patterns between Finnish and Czech owls result from longer nights in central Europe compared to those in north Europe during breeding season [24]. This species naturally nests in natural tree cavities but also readily accepts nest boxes (e.g., [25]–[28]). It feeds mainly on small mammals [23], [29]–[31], and male provides nearly all food to the female from egg laying until she terminates her stay on the nest, and also, thereafter, for the young until independence (i.e., 5–9 weeks after leaving the nest; [32]–[35]). The male delivers prey at the nest entrance and in nearly all nest visits (99% of all cases) arrives with a prey. He either throws the prey into the nest cavity/nest box or gives it to the female or any nestling perching at the nest entrance, entering the nest cavity only exceptionally, most often when the female is not present [36]. The female incubates the eggs, broods the young, and remains almost continually in the nest cavity until the young are about 3 weeks old [23], [37].
Nestlings hatch at intervals of 1–2 days (at roughly the same intervals as the eggs are laid; [23], [26], [38]), and thus they differ in size. At the age of 3–4 weeks, the young are capable of thermoregulation and tearing up prey items for themselves. Starting at the 20th day of age, they show the first signs of ability to climb, are able to climb all the way to the cavity entrance at the age of 26–30 days, and leave the nest at the age of 27–38 days [23], [27], [34], [39], [40]. Wing length of nestlings continues to grow with age from hatching until the period after fledging (owlets fledge with incomplete feather growth), while body weight increases only to 3–4 weeks after hatching, and thereafter is essentially stable or may even decline [23], [41]. During this time (late nestling and post-fledging dependency period) the offspring may vocalize either in the presence and/or absence of the parents to solicit food [38], [42] as in other owl species (e. g., [43]–[46]).
In this paper we examine perching of Tengmalm's owl nestlings at the nest entrance and explore possible explanations for this behaviour. Using cameras, we obtained continuous data (24 hrs. per a day) on perching of Finnish and Czech nestlings at the entrance of artificial nest boxes. Because adult Tengmalm's owls are active only during the night (and roost during daylight; [23], [24], [47]), we predicted (i) that nestlings will perch at the nest box entrance and also leave the nest box (at fledging) only during the night time. We further predicted (ii) that duration of perching at the entrance will increase with the age of nestlings reflecting their improving ability to climb. Since wing length increases with age, (iii) perching at the nest entrance should also increase with the length of wing (with longer wings, in addition, conferring a greater ability to reach the entrance). Perching by nestlings at the nest box entrance may be motivated by gaining first access to food brought in by the parent and thus we also predicted (iv) that the duration of perching at the nest box entrance will decrease with the time of night as offspring will be gradually satiated. Finally, we expected the duration of perching at the nest box entrance will depend on nestlings' body condition (body weight), and in particular, (v) it will decrease with increasing body weight because satiated individuals (or individuals in better body condition indicating by higher body weight) will not need to wait at the nest entrance to obtain prior access to additional prey.
Materials and Methods
Study area
The study was conducted over two breeding seasons, in Finland during the breeding season of 2005 (63° N, 23° E) and during 2006 in the Czech Republic (50° N, 13° E). The Finnish site was situated in the Kauhava region of western Finland (50–110 m a. s. l.), covered ca 1300 km2, and included 500 nest boxes [48], [49]; the Czech site was situated in the Ore Mountains (730–960 m a. s. l.), covered ca 70 km2, and included 120 nest boxes. Nest boxes were square in section and made of wood, with base 25×25 cm, height 40 cm and an entrance hole 8 cm in diameter.
Field procedures
Nestling behaviour was followed from April to August at nine nests (12% of the whole nesting population) in the Kauhava region in 2005 and at five nests (21% of the whole nesting population) in the Ore Mts. in 2006. For monitoring of nestlings we used special nest boxes equipped with camera and chip system (see below). Three such nest boxes were deployed at each study area. We were thus able to monitor three nest boxes simultaneously at any one time and, after all individuals had fledged from monitored nest boxes we were able to transfer the equipment to enable us to monitor later broods, allowing us to increase sample sizes, as above. Nests suitable for monitoring were selected randomly. Only nests located close to roads and paths were excluded to avoid drawing public attention to the boxes fitted with the technical apparatus. Once locations for monitoring had been selected, we replaced the original nest box with one fitted with the camera and chip system. The box replacements were carried out during hatching period, and thus, these nests were then monitored continuously from hatching until the last nestling left the nest.
The equipment used to monitor the nestlings' perching at the cavity entrance consisted of a camera (DECAM), a chip reader device, a movement data-logger, a movement infrared detector (KS96), and infrared lightning (IR diodes, SFH 485–2 880 nm, [50]). All nestlings were marked by chip rings (BR chip ring, BENZING), attached on the foot. A chip aerial affixed by the nest box entrance detected chip rings in its vicinity, i.e., only chip rings of the individuals appearing at or near (up to approximately 5 cm) the entrance of the nest box (the distance between the nest box floor and the bottom of the nest box entrance hole being 25 cm). The chip reader recorded the time and length of detection (beginning and end of detection) and the chip code of the ring. A camera was also installed inside the nest box opposite to the entrance. It was triggered by the infrared detector sensitive to movements in the nest box entrance. During the night, the nest box entrance hole was illuminated by infrared diodes at the time of the cameras' making photos. The time of detection was recorded by the movement data-logger and one to three photos were taken for each event. Using this equipment, we were able to record time and duration of each nestlings' perching at the nest box entrance.
In total, 43 nestlings were monitored: 32 from 9 nests in Finland (3.6±1.6 individuals per nest, mean ± SD; range 1–6) and 11 from 5 nests in the Czech Republic (2.2±1.2 individuals per nest, range 1–4). All individuals were weighed and the length of wing was measured at approximately weekly intervals during the afternoon hours (between 2–6 p.m.) which at least partially reduced possible fluctuations of nestlings' body weight since they are usually fed during the night time [24]. For the statistical analyses wing length was extrapolated to the age of 30 days from hatching for each individual and body weight was taken from the last weighing of each individual (i.e., 30.4±2.5 days from hatching, 2.3±2.0 days before fledging, mean ± SD). The age of the nestlings was in most cases based on the recorded date of hatching. In cases where the exact date of hatching was not recorded, the ages of such nestlings were estimated according to the growth curves (for wing length and body weight) valid for each of the studied populations [23], [41].
Owls were ringed under the Ringing Centre of the National Museum in Prague permit No. 329 and 942, were trapped and handled under the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic permit No. 35016/02-OOP/8751/02, as well as under the Finish Museum of National History (licence No. 524) and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.
Statistical analyses
When collecting the field data, we found that the nestlings are active and perching at the nest box entrance during the daylight as well as at night. Since this was in contrast with our expectation, we analysed daylight and night data separately; dividing the periods as I) night-time (i.e., Finland: 22:00–4:00 and Czech R.: 21:00–5:00) and II) day-time (i.e., Finland: 4:01–21:59 and Czech R.: 5:01–20:59).
All data were analysed with the aid of SAS System version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.). The analysis was made in three steps. Firstly, to verify that there were no differences in behaviour (total, average and individual duration of nestlings' perching at the nest box entrance hole) between study areas we used a multivariate General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM, PROC MIXED) with log-transformed duration of perching at the nest box entrance as a dependent variable with area (Finland and Czech Republic) and part of the day (day-time and night-time) nested within the area as fixed effects. The significance of each fixed effect in the GLMM was assessed by the F-test. To account for the repeated measures on the same individuals, the analysis was performed with individual fledging as a random factor. Least-squares means (LSMEANs) were computed for each class and differences between classes were tested by t-test. We used a Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Secondly, to check for possible multicollinearity we calculated correlations between the individual variables involved (listed in Table 1). Correlation was found between wing length and body weight (0.53, P<0.0001) and wing length and time from hatching (−0.44, P<0.0001). We subsequently made a judgment of the extent of collinearity by checking related statistics, such as tolerance value or variance inflation factor (VIF), eigenvalue, and condition number following the approach of Belsley et al. [51] and using TOL, VIF and COLLIN options of the MODEL statement in the SAS REG procedure. Although, we did not find a support for exclusion either wing length, body weight or time from hatching from our models according to above mentioned indices for judgment of the extent of collinearity, we omitted body weight in models calculated both for daylight hours and night-time perching (I, II, see below). In both cases body weight was significant only when involved with wing length but nonsignificant when involved without wing length. Thus, we left only wing length in both models whose significance was much higher and therefore had to omit testing prediction (v). Time from hatching (i.e., nestlings' age) was also left in both models (I, II) since it was statistically significant (and the inter-correlation coefficients with other variables involved did not seem to be prohibitively large for them to be included alongside in the same model).
In the third step of our analysis we tested the associations between the individual duration of perching at the nest box entrance (i.e., duration of each individual visit to the nest box entrance) and other variables (fixed and random effects) using a GLMM in each case; we analysed separately perching durations recorded (I) during the night (0.02 to 125.97 min, log transformed) and (II) during daylight (0.05 to 146.98 min, log transformed). To account for the use of repeated measures on the same individuals from the same nest box, analyses were performed using mixed model analysis with individual fledgling nested within nesting box, year and study area as random effects. Fixed effects employed within the models are summarised in Table 1.
We constructed the GLMMs I and II by entering first those factors which we expected to have an effect on individual duration of perching at the nest box entrance (time of night or day, time from hatching and nestlings' wing length) and then checking the model with addition of the factors which might also affect the result. If not specifically explained, non-significant factors (P>0.05) were dropped from the model and will not be mentioned any further. Where appropriate we tested interaction terms. Associations between the dependent variable and fixed effects were estimated by fitting a random coefficient model using PROC MIXED as described by Tao et al. [52]. We calculated predicted values of the log-transformed dependent variable and plotted them against the fixed effect with predicted regression line.
Results
The log-transformed duration of perching at the nest box entrance from Finland and the Czech Republic did not differ (GLMM, F1, 79.2 = 1.19, NS, Fig. 1). Part of the day nested within the area was significant (F2, 3865 = 17.84, P<0.0001) which reflected the difference between day-time and night-time both in Finland (t = −3.15, P = 0.009, Fig. 1) and the Czech Republic (t = −5.08, P<0.0001, Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was detected between the countries in periods defined as day (t = −1.26, NS, Fig. 1) or night (t = −0.83, NS, Fig. 1); we therefore subsequently pooled data from both areas for further analysis and did not further consider the effect of the area.
In both study areas/seasons, nestlings began appearing at the nest box entrance at the age of 24–34 days after hatching (28.1±2.1 days, mean ± SD, n = 43). They usually appeared at the entrance in the order in which they had hatched and also in the same order in which they subsequently left the nest box, which happened on average 32.7±1.5 days after hatching (range 30–36 days). None of the nestlings left the nest box without spending some time at the cavity entrance. During the night-time they perched at the cavity entrance showing a single peak of activity in Finland (Fig. 2a) and two peaks of activity in the Czech Republic (Fig. 2b). However, nestlings also perched at the nest box entrance during daylight hours and with no conspicuous peak of activity in either of the study areas (Fig. 2a, b). Nestlings left the nest box (fledged) during both the night (n = 22) and the day (n = 21). No fledgling was recorded as returning to the nest after fledging.
The nestlings perched at the cavity entrance in varying intervals, ranging from 1 sec to 147 min (7.6±10.9 min, mean ± SD, n = 3868). In total, each nestling was observed perching at the entrance 32±16 times during nights and 58±25 times during daylights, i.e., 8.1±4.9 times per night and 12.4±7.6 times per daylight on average.
On average, each nestling spent 10.9 hours (±5.2 hrs, range 2.8–22.6, n = 43) at the entrance over a period of 5.6 days (±1.9 days, 2–10), an average which corresponds to a duration of 2.0±0.8 hours per day. This time was distributed fairly evenly across the 24 hour period: during the nights, the nestlings perched at the cavity entrance on average 1.0±0.5 hrs per night while during daylight, they perched at the entrance on average 1.3±0.6 hrs per day.
Mean time spent at the cavity entrance per perching event during the night (9.1±4.6 min, 1.2–20.9) was significantly longer than during the daylight (7.0±3.5 min, 1.4–17.3) (PROC UNIVARIATE, Wilcoxon signed-rank test: S = −295, p<0.0001, n = 43). The nestlings perching at the entrance often spread and folded their wings, and they always disappeared inside the nest box when the parents delivered prey.
General perching patterns at the cavity entrance
The results of the GLMM I for the individual duration of nestlings' perching at the nest box entrance during the night revealed that it was dependent on time of night (F1, 1377 = 10.38, P = 0.0013), nestlings' age (F1, 1255 = 45.13, P<0.0001) and wing length (F1, 48.3 = 6.93, P = 0.0113). Length of time spent perching at the nest box entrance decreased with the time of night (Fig. 3a), increased with increasing age (Fig. 4) and wing length (Fig. 5).
The results of the GLMM II for the individual duration of nestlings' perching at the nest box entrance during daylight revealed no formally significant effect of time of day with no real trend (F1, 2490 = 3.43, P = 0.0640, Fig. 3b, shown for illustration); however, time spent perched at the entrance was dependent on nestlings' age (F1, 2184 = 162.72, P<0.0001) and wing length (F1, 46.8 = 11.41, P = 0.0015). Duration of perching increased with increasing age and wing length (very similar to Figs. 4 and 5 and therefore not shown).
Discussion
Our results showed that, throughout the late nesting period (1–2 weeks before fledging) Tengmalm's owl nestlings spend a total of about 8% of their time overall at the nest box entrance. This behaviour was shown by both Finish and Czech owl nestlings, suggesting the both populations have developed the same life-history trait. Contrary to our first prediction (i), nestlings perched at the cavity entrance during both the night and daytime, and also left the nest box (fledged) during both night and daylight periods; perching at the nest box entrance was however more frequent and for longer durations during the night than during the day. This perching behaviour (whether by night or by day) has rarely been described in nestlings of other birds of prey and owls although it has been observed for example in Little owls (Athene noctua) [53].
Nestlings' activity at the cavity entrance during the night
According to our prediction (iv) we found that the individual duration of nestlings' perching at the nest box entrance decreased with the time of night. In Tengmalm's owl there is usually no prey stored in the nest during the latest stage of nesting because nestlings usually consume all prey immediately upon delivery by the parents ([23], Kouba & Zárybnická unpublished data). Thus, in perching at the nest entrance, hungry nestling(s) can be anticipating the arrival of the parents delivering prey in order to gain an advantageous position for obtaining food once it is brought. We suggest that the individual duration of nestlings' perching at the cavity entrance decreased through the night with increasing satiation of the nestlings – a conclusion consistent with observations in Tengmalm's owl fledglings that the probability of vocalization (begging for food) also decreased with the time of night during post-fledging dependence period [42].
Although we could not directly test the relationship between the nestlings' perching at the cavity entrance and receiving a prey item from parents we found that the activity patterns of Finnish and Czech nestlings at the nest box entrance showed peaks in activity corresponding to peaks in provisioning patterns of Finnish [23], [24] and Czech [22], [24], [36] Tengmalm's owls, respectively. These results support the hypothesis that perching of nestlings at the cavity entrance during the night is probably connected with gaining a food advantage for the individual perched there.
Nestlings' activity at the cavity entrance during the daylight
Observations that nestlings also perch at the nest box entrance during the daylight were unexpected, since Tengmalm's owl adults are active exclusively at night [23], [24], [54]. Although, daylight activity has also been described in Barn owl nestlings [55] whose parents are also active almost exclusively at night [38], in our study the time spent at the nest box entrance during the daylight was appreciable because individual nestlings perched here for about an hour each, every day. In contrast to the pattern of this behaviour at night the amount of time nestlings spent perched at the cavity entrance during the day did not change with time of day. Half of all nestlings also left the nest box (fledged) during daylight hours.
We observed that nestlings perching at the cavity entrance often spread and folded up their wings which could be interpreted as deliberate exercising of the wings for future flying. There is usually little space on the nest box floor as a consequence of the presence of other siblings and the nestlings could gauge their flying muscles and preparedness for flight while perching at the nest box entrance. We suggest that unlike perching during the night, perching during daylight may thus be a preparation for leaving the nest box rather than positioning themselves for prior access to delivered prey.
Factors influencing nestlings' activity at the cavity entrance
We found the individual duration of nestlings' perching at the nest box entrance increased with both age of nestlings and their wing length (ii and iii). These results were found for both parts of day (night and daylight). Tengmalm's owl nestlings were not physically able to climb to the cavity entrance before 24th day after hatching. However, as they got older and their wing length was increasing it became progressively easier for them to reach the entrance hole. We suggest that nestlings' ability to climb to the nest box entrance is also dependent on body size and condition as indicated by wing length.
We omitted to test prediction (v) because we excluded body weight from statistical models. However, the fact that body weight was in all cases nonsignificant when involved without wing length (result was found for both parts of the day – night and daylight) supports suggestion that body weight did not appear appropriate variable for assessing the degree of food-satiation of young and their long-term body condition as it has been recently shown [42]. This could be possibly explained by the fact that body weight increases only to 3–4 weeks after hatching, and thereafter is essentially stable or may even decline [23], [41]. Thus, wing length was statistically more influential in comparison with body weight during both parts of the day, which suggests importance of the wing length for assessment of the nestling's age and/or body size.
We propose different explanations of these findings for the two periods. It seems probable that older nestlings were likely to be able to out-compete their younger nest mates at any stage of the day or night in getting to the nest box entrance due to larger size (indicated by longer wings) and better climbing ability. During the night this could offer advantage in monopolizing prey items brought by the parents. On the other hand, during the daylight periods, when parents were not bringing food to the nest box [24], the older and larger siblings may have perched longer and more often at the entrance in preparation for fledging earlier than their younger and smaller nest mates [23]. It is also possible that by monopolizing the nest box entrance, older nestlings can reaffirm their social dominance status (in the same way as is reported for vocalisation by Barn owl nestlings [56], [57]).
We conclude that the activity patterns of nestlings shown in the frequency and duration of perching at the nest box entrance differed from activity patterns of adults because nestlings were active during the period of daylight as well as at night, in contrast to the strictly nocturnal habit of their parents. We suggest perching of nestlings at the nest box entrance during the daylight as a result of preparation for fledging while individuals perching at the nest box entrance during the night may gain prior access to prey items brought by the parent, and thus, have direct food advantage.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks are due to Erkki Korpimäki for providing a foothold in Finland and allowing for this research to be undertaken in his study area. We are grateful to Jan Zárybnický, Karel Šťastný, Michael Griesser, Jorma Nurmi and Rauno Varjonen for their help in the field, and to Vladimír Bezouška and Pavel Děd for their technical assistance. We also thank Rory Putman for valuable comments on the early draft of the manuscript and improving English. Next we would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions to the earlier draft of the manuscript.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: MZ. Performed the experiments: MZ. Analyzed the data: LB MK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MZ LB MK. Wrote the paper: MK MZ LB.
References
- 1.
Mock DW, Parker GA (1997) The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 2. Stamps J, Clark A, Arrowood P, Kus B (1985) Parent-offspring conflict in budgerigars. Behaviour 94: 1–40.
- 3. Stamps J, Clark A, Arrowood P, Kus B (1989) Begging behavior in budgerigars. Ethology 81: 177–192.
- 4. Wright J, Cuthill I (1989) Manipulation of sex-differences in parental care. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25: 171–181.
- 5. Hofstetter SH, Ritchison G (1998) The begging behavior of nestling Eastern Screech-Owls. Wilson Bull 110: 86–92.
- 6. Dreiss A, Lahlah N, Roulin A (2010) How siblings adjust sib-sib communication and begging signals to each other. Anim Behav 80: 1049–1055.
- 7. Smith HG, Montgomerie R (1991) Nestling american robins compete with siblings by begging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29: 307–312.
- 8. Teather KL (1992) An experimental-study of competition for food between male and female nestlings of the red-winged blackbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31: 81–87.
- 9. Roulin A, Dreiss A, Fioravanti C, Bize P (2009) Vocal sib-sib interactions: how siblings adjust signalling level to each other. Anim Behav 77: 717–725.
- 10. Rydén O, Bengtsson H (1980) Differential begging and locomotory behavior by early and late hatched nestlings affecting the distribution of food in asynchronously hatched broods of altricial birds. Zeits Tierpsychol 53: 209–224.
- 11. McRae SB, Weatherhead PJ, Montgomerie R (1993) American robin nestlings compete by jockeying for position. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33: 101–106.
- 12. Kacelnik A, Cotton PA, Stirling L, Wright J (1995) Food allocation among nestling starlings – sibling competition and the scope of parental choice. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 259: 259–263.
- 13. Kilner R (1995) When do canary parents respond to nestling signals of need. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 260: 343–348.
- 14. Kilner RM (2002) Sex differences in canary (Serinus canaria) provisioning rules. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52: 400–407.
- 15. Ostreiher R (2001) The importance of nestling location for obtaining food in open cup-nests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49: 340–347.
- 16.
Stein MF (1986) Parental care and offspring competition in tree swallows: M.Sc. thesis, University of Michigan, Michigan.
- 17. Gottlander K (1987) Parental feeding-behavior and sibling competition in the Pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Ornis Scand 18: 269–276.
- 18. Tanner M, Kolliker M, Richner H (2007) Parental influence on sibling rivalry in great tit, Parus major, nests. Anim Behav 74: 977–983.
- 19. Roulin A (2001) On the cost of begging vocalization: implications of vigilance. Behav Ecol 12: 506–511.
- 20. Ricklefs RE (1966) Behavior of young Cactus Wrens and Curve-billed Thrashers. Wilson Bull 78: 47–56.
- 21. Dreiss AN, Calcagno M, van den Brink V, Laurent A, Almasi B, et al. (2013) The vigilance components of begging and sibling competition. J Avian Biol 44: 359–368.
- 22. Klaus S, Mikkola H, Wiesner J (1975) Aktivität und Ernährung des Rauhfusskauzes Aegolius funeres (L.) während der Fortpflanzungsperiode. Zool Jb Syst Bd 102: 485–507.
- 23. Korpimäki E (1981) On the ecology and biology of Tengmalm's Owl (Aegolius funereus) in southern Ostrobothnia and Soumenselkä, western Finland: Acta Univ Oul A 118 Biol. 13: 1–84.
- 24. Zárybnická M, Korpimäki E, Griesser M (2012) Dark or short nights: differential latitudinal constraints in nestling provisioning patterns of a nocturnally hunting bird species. PLoS One 7(5): e36932
- 25.
Korpimäki E (1984) Clutch size and breeding success of Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus in natural cavities and nest-boxes. Ornis Fenn: 80–83.
- 26. Vacík R (1991) Breeding biology of Tengmalm's owl, Aegolius funereus, in Bohemia and Moravia, (In Czech with English summary). Sylvia 28: 95–113.
- 27. Drdáková-Zárybnická M (2003) Breeding biology of the Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus) in air-pollution damaged areas of the Krušné hory Mts. (In Czech with English summary). Sylvia 39: 35–51.
- 28. López BC, Potrony D, López A, Badosa E, Bonada A, et al. (2010) Nest-box use by boreal owls (Aegolius funereus) in the Pyrenees Mountains in Spain. J Raptor Res 44: 40–49.
- 29. Kloubec B, Vacík R (1990) Náčrt potravní ekologie sýce rousného (Aegolius funereus) v Československu. Tichodroma 3: 103–125.
- 30.
Pykal J, Kloubec B (1994) Feeding ecology of Tengmalm's owl Aegolius funereus in the Šumava National Park, Czechoslovakia. In: Meyburg B-U, Chancellor RD, eds. Raptor Conservation Today. Berlin, Germany: WWGBP/The Pica Press. 537–541.
- 31. Pokorný J (2000) Potrava sýce rousného (Aegolius funereus) v imisemi poškozených oblastech Jizerských hor a Krkonoš. Buteo 11: 107–114.
- 32. Zárybnická M, Sedláček O, Korpimäki E (2009) Do Tengmalm's Owls alter parental feeding effort under varying conditions of main prey availability? J Ornithol 150: 231–237.
- 33. Eldegard K, Sonerud GA (2010) Experimental increase in food supply influences the outcome of within-family conflicts in Tengmalm's owl. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64: 815–826.
- 34. Eldegard K, Sonerud GA (2012) Sex roles during post-fledging care in birds: female Tengmalm's Owls contribute little to food provisioning. J Ornithol 153: 385–398.
- 35. Kouba M, Bartoš L, Šťastný K (2013) Differential movement patterns of juvenile Tengmalm's owls (Aegolius funereus) during the post-fledging dependence period in two years with contrasting prey abundance. PLoS One 8(7): e67034
- 36. Zárybnická M (2009) Activity patterns of male Tengmalm's owls, Aegolius funereus under varying food conditions. Folia Zool 58: 104–112.
- 37. Zárybnická M (2009) Parental investment of female Tengmalm's Owls Aegolius funereus: correlation with varying food abundance and reproductive success. Acta Ornithol 44: 81–88.
- 38.
König C, Weick F (2008) Owls of the world. Second edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
- 39.
Glutz BUN, Bauer KM (1980) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Band 9. Wiesbaden, Germany: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
- 40. Kouba M, Šťastný K (2012) Home ranges of Tengmalm's Owl (Aegolius funereus) fledglings during post-fledging dependence period in polluted areas of the Krušné hory Mts., (In Czech with English summary). Sylvia 48: 115–125.
- 41. Drdáková-Zárybnická M (2005) Růst mláďat sýce rousného (Aegolius funereus) v Krušných horách. Buteo 14: 37–50.
- 42. Kouba M, Bartoš L, Šťastný K (2014) Factors affecting vocalization in Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus) fledglings during post-fledging dependence period: scramble competition or honest signalling of need? PLoS One 9(4): e95594
- 43. Roulin A, Kolliker M, Richner H (2000) Barn owl (Tyto alba) siblings vocally negotiate resources. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 267: 459–463.
- 44. Penteriani V, Delgado MM, Maggio C, Aradis A, Sergio F (2005) Development of chicks and predispersal behaviour of young in the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo. Ibis 147: 155–168.
- 45. Roulin A, Bersier LF (2007) Nestling barn owls beg more intensely in the presence of their mother than in the presence of their father. Anim Behav 74: 1099–1106.
- 46. Pedersen D, Thorup K, Sunde P, Jacobsen LB, Rahbek C (2013) Post-fledging behaviour of juveniles in the Little Owl (Athene noctua). Ornis Fenn 90: 117–128.
- 47. Hayward GD, Hayward PH, Garton EO (1993) Ecology of boreal owls in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Wildl Monogr 124: 1–59.
- 48. Korpimäki E, Hakkarainen H (1991) Fluctuating food suplly affects the cluch size of Tengmalm's owl independent of laying date. Oecologia 85: 543–552.
- 49. Korpimäki E (1992) Fluctuating food abundance determines the lifetime reproductive success of male Tengmalm's Owls. J Anim Ecol 61: 103–111.
- 50.
Bezouška V, Děd P, Drdáková M (2005) The automatic system for monitoring of owls' nests. ITCE 2005 Conference Abstracts: 173–182.
- 51.
Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- 52.
Tao J, Littell R, Patetta M, Truxillo C, Wolfinger R (2002) Mixed model analyses using the SAS system course notes. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.
- 53. Čtyroký P (1971/72) Observation of the nocturnal activity of the Little owl (Athene noctua noctua Scop.) at the nest, (In Czech with English summary). Sylvia 19: 83–88.
- 54. Zárybnická M (2008) Circadian activity of the Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus) in the Krušné hory Mts.: the effect of different parental roles (In Czech with English summary). Sylvia 44: 51–61.
- 55. Wuntke B (2003) The development of daily rhythmicity in Barn Owls (Tyto alba). J Ornithol 144: 81–85.
- 56. Dreiss AN, Ruppli CA, Faller C, Roulin A (2013) Big brother is watching you: eavesdropping to resolve family conflicts. Behav Ecol 24: 717–722.
- 57. Dreiss AN, Ruppli CA, Roulin A (2014) Individual vocal signatures in barn owl nestlings: does individual recognition have an adaptive role in sibling vocal competition? J Evol Biol 27: 63–75.