Deception by helpers in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs and its experimental manipulation

White-winged choughs (Corcorax melanorhamphos) are obligate cooperative breeders, living in groups which may contain up to 20 birds. Although breeding is dominated by a single pair, all birds contribute to rearing young, including the provisioning of nestlings. However, some birds which have carried food to the nest, even to the point of placing the food in the gaping mouth of a nestling, consume the food themselves rather than provision the nestlings. Birds which fail to feed nestlings are typically young, and are only likely to fail to deliver food when they cannot be observed by other group members. Birds which have just failed to deliver food are more likely to engage in alternative helping behaviours such as allopreening the nestlings than are helpers which have just delivered food in the conventional manner. Failure to deliver food is almost eliminated when foraging constraints are experimentally reduced by supplemental feeding of the group. Collectively these observations suggest that young white-winged choughs act deceptively by simulating helping behaviours without sacrificing food supplies. Received: 24 January 1997 / Accepted after revision: 6 June 1997     

A critical analysis of ‘false-feeding’ behavior in a cooperatively breeding bird: disturbance effects,satiated nestlings or deception?

‘False feeding,’ where helpers arrive at nests with food but fail to provision the young, has been reported in several cooperative species. This and other potentially ‘deceptive’ behavior has been interpreted as indicating that helping may operate as a signal within such social groups. We critically examine these phenomena in the provisioning behavior of the bell miner Manorina melanophrys. Excessively close observation distances can artificially elevate the rate of false feeding in this (and other) species, but once this had been accounted for, there was little evidence for any ‘deceptive’ behavior by helpers or breeders. Natural and experimentally induced variation in the presence of a potential conspecific audience at the nest did not have any consistent influence upon the rate of false feeds, which was low at 7.94% of 6,880 nest visits. Instead, encountering unexpectedly low levels of brood demand provided a more parsimonious explanation for those visits where helpers failed to feed nestlings or ate the food themselves. Failure to completely transfer a load to nestlings was more likely when the load contained a high proportion of sticky lerp, indicating a simple prey-transfer problem. Finally, individuals that arrived at nests without prey were often members of neighboring breeding pairs, suggesting that these few non-feeding visits may instead involve an information-gathering function. We, therefore, suggest that future studies explicitly exclude the possibility of observer disturbance and all aspects of normal provisioning behavior before applying the terms ‘false feeding’ or ‘deceptive’ and inferring anything more than straightforward helping at the nest.