Talk:Communal roosting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhumke, Walter Moczygemba. Peer reviewers: Erm22, Artfuldodger08, Jyousif11, Akg16, Swu160.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Communal roosting is practiced by birds, bats and some insects.

Some benefits as a result of communal roosting are reduced predation risk, increased breading interactions and reduced cost in defending a territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtneywallingford (talk • contribs) 21:51, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Great job you guys! I did have some suggestions. First, I'm not 100% sure you need the entire sections on potential costs and benefits of communal roosting. After all, benefits are listed in the introduction and throughout the evolution section for the different hypotheses. I also see costs mentioned in a couple places in the hypotheses: you mention the waste of energy by successful foragers in the ICH model and the cost of sharing a food source in the RCH model. I think maybe if you draw more attention to these costs, maybe by discussing them in a small separate paragraph for each model (even just a sentence or two, just not in the middle of the paragraph), that would eliminate the need for a whole separate section on costs. There was one cost that I thought of that I don't see listed anywhere... doesn't the communal roost attract more predators? Presumably these roosts are visible and noisy. I do see where you say in the insects section that predators infrequently attack large roosts, but you say somewhere else that a large group of birds can't do much against a predator. I see these things as being slightly in conflict.

In addition, I thought maybe the "in birds" section could be broken up into a couple separate sub paragraphs, just to make it easier to read (the whole chunk of text is a little daunting). I have done this, but feel free to put it back if you don't like it.

Hope this helps! Akg16 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A couple more things: what is "high conspecific attraction" (mentioned in the tree swallow sentence in the birds section)? You also say "in these species"--which species? I thought we were just talking about the tree swallow? Or are you also talking about the acorn woodpecker here? Might want to clarify these things.

In addition, I was debating a bit on the birds subsection of the extant species section in the first place. I understand why you have it--you need a place to discuss all the different examples in birds that don't directly apply to the models you discuss in the previous section. However, it reads a bit strangely, as it means you have bird examples spread across two sections. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is, however... Akg16 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I also think you may want to tidy up the way you list scientific and common names. In some cases, both are listed, and in some only the common name is listed. I think if you're going to list the scientific names for any of them, you should do it for them all. Akg16 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I praise you guys on your organization. However, I do think that you all could gain from shortening the portion about the evolutionary basis of communal roosting. For example, you have a large potion about the Information Center Hypothesis and you give specific examples that would support the hypothesis. Then you go on to list other species that exhibit this behavior. While this does give important information, I don't think you need a whole portion for those other species. Or if you'd like to keep it, I think you would benefit from adding these examples to the previous portion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levibrice (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi y'all, I really like what you've done on this post. I thought the section on the Information Center Hypothesis was well organized and very easy to read. However, I am wondering if it is necessary to list species that seemingly support this hypothesis. Maybe try to weave some of them in the main part of the section. This is just a suggestion, though. Another aspect I liked about the section on IHC was the problems with the theory. It was nice how you used this section to explain the other side of the theory to give readers a full perspective of the topic. Jyousif11 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Communal Roosting team, First of all, awesome work. I really liked this article, and I think you did a wonderful job of organizing it and putting everything together. Your section on the ICH was really well thought out, but I don't think you need as much here. You sort of repeat yourself with the species part, since you sort of list all of them under the reasons section as well. Another thought on this section, which you don't need to take on, is that it might be helpful in your explanation to label each bullet point. Some you start with the term you are exploring like advertisement, while the section on mood doesn't. It just might make the flow a little easier to follow. In your two strategies section, I changed a little bit of the grammar, just to make it flow better. Also another thought there; what predates rooks? Do they have a lot of terrestrial predators? I just honestly don't know how significant that is on the predation scale. For this section as well, are there counterarguments to this theory? You explain a few for the ICH, but not for this, so it seems a little unbalanced. For the recruitment center hypothesis, I think the last sentence of your second paragraph is a bit awkward, but I didn't want to change it because I didn't want to change the content. Again in this section too: are there any negatives for this hypothesis? Looking at your potential costs and benefits sections, I think those could be rolled into the discussion of the hypotheses. For instance, almost all of the benefits are things you've explained before, and I don't think you need to reiterate them in as much detail. The costs are more new, and might serve as a good counterpoint to your last two hypotheses. Apart from those bits which are more organization then content, you guys have a really strong article here, and I was really impressed with your work. Good job guys! Artfuldodger08 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is quite thoroughly done! Nice job guys. A few things: 1. What do you mean by "good mood" behaviors? Could you give some examples or expand on how these behaviors act as signals? 2. It would be nice to have a number or ballpark estimate for how many individuals usually make up a communal roost in a particular species. For instance, how many individuals would constitute a "large group" as the one you mention the black-billed magpies form in the winter? And how much do these sizes of roosts vary according to season/weather/resource variability etc? Swu160 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi y'all, I just took a look at the Two Strategies Hypothesis and I thought it was really well written and informative. I saw that you mentioned support for the theory, but I was wondering if there are any negatives. You mention that there are assumptions that must be taken for the hypothesis to hold true, but maybe expand on this for the reader so that the pros and cons of the hypothesis are of equal magnitude. Jyousif11 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys! Great job on the article, I really found that it was interesting and thorough. My only issue is that in your intro you mention primates as another example of communal roosters, however you do not give any examples of primates roosting communally. You do give examples of other mammals, maybe you could remove the word "primates"? I would have done it myself, but I wasn't sure if it was there for some other reason. Otherwise, great job! Pkann6 (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Untitled feedback
Potential bibliography to update and expand article, comments and suggestions appriciated

Hiraldo, Fernando., Borja Heredia, and Juan Carlos Alonso. “Communal Roosting of Wintering Red Kites Milvus milvus (Aves, Accipitridae): Social Feeding Strategies for the Exploitation of Food Resources.” Ethology 93.2 (1993): 117-124.

Brief Summary: The article analyzed the communal roosting of wintering red kites, and whether their behavior could be explained through the ICH (Information Centre Hypothesis). It concluded by stating that kites in roosts tended to have larger roaming ranges and shared food upon discovery, and that network foraging was the purpose for gathering at roosting sites. This fits under the ICH, which the article defined as “...bird assemblies have evolved primarily for the efficient exploitation of unpredictable or irregularly distributed resources, via exchange of information regarding the location of food”).

Bijleveld, Allert I., Martijn Egas, Jan A. van Gils and Theunis Piersma “Beyond the information centre hypothesis: communal roosting for information on food, predators, travel companions and mates?” Oikos 119.2 (2009): 277-285.

Brief Summary: The article suggests a more detailed explanation of the ICH. The ICH explains that roosting serves as an information center for food, but the authors believe that aspects such as mating, companionship, and predation should be considered. The study focused on the red knot bird species, explaining how gizzard size affected feeding rates and companions (knots with larger gizzards ate quicker and would leave faster than knots with smaller gizzards - greater exposure to predation after one leaves). Other interesting facts included mating (costs of mating and territory acquisition reduced for red-billed choughs), improved synchronization of migration, moulting simultaneously together reduces predation risk (loss of flying ability ).

Blanco, Guillermo and Jose L. Tella. “Temporal, spatial and social segregation of red-billed choughs between two types of communal roost: a role for mating and territory acquisition.” The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour 57 (1999): 1219-1227.

Brief Summary: This article focuses on the roosting behavior red-billed choughs, which roost in either a main roost or a subroost. Main roosts are used constantly, whereas the sub roosts are used irregularly by red-billed choughs that lack both a mate and territory. As the author put it, the sub roosts act as a “club” that improves the ability of non-breeding choughs to find a mate and gain territory.

Laughlin, A. J., D. R. Sheldon, D. W. Winkler, and C. M. Taylor. "Behavioral Drivers of Communal Roosting in a Songbird: A Combined Theoretical and Empirical Approach." Behavioral Ecology 25.4 (2014): 734-43. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Brief Summary: These researchers developed a model which they used to predict roosting habits of Tree Swallows. The model integrated conspecific attraction and roost fidelity and attempted to measure the relative amount of each in regards to the swallow’s habits.

Richner, Heinz, and Philipp Heeb. "Communal Life: Honest Signaling and the Recruitment Center Hypothesis." Behavioral Ecology 7.1 (1996): 115-18. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Brief Summary: This article seeks to replace the ICH hypothesis with the Recruitment Center Hypothesis. This hypothesis is based on individual selections and recruitment of specific birds to communal roosts.

Weatherhead, Patrick J. "Two Principal Strategies in Avian Communal Roosts." The American Naturalist 121.2 (1983): 237-43. JSTOR. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Brief Summary: This article provides another alternative hypothesis to ICH. For birds with the greater foraging abilities, communal roosting acts as sort of a selfish herd where these birds have better, more central roosting spots. For the younger, less able birds communal roosts give them foraging advantage along with some possible protection from predation.

Beauchamp, Guy. “The evolution of communal roosting in birds: origin and secondary losses.” Behavioral Ecology 10.6 (1999): 675–687.

Brief Summary: This article examines three main evolutionary benefits to communal roosting: reduction of thermoregulatory demands, protection from predation, and increased foraging capacity. It determines that evolutionarily the most likely cause for communal roosting is flocking leading to increased foraging capacity, although this is not true in all species. It also describes the loss of communal roosting in some species.

Plessis, Ma du., Morné A., Wesley W. Weathers, and Walter D. Koenig. “Energetic benefits of communal roosting by acorn woodpeckers during the nonbreeding season.” Condor (1994): 631–637.

Brief Summary: This article examines communal roosting in acorn woodpeckers with regard to the energetic benefits gained. It concludes that acorn woodpeckers gain a significant energetic gain by roosting communally in the winter.

Finkbeiner, Susan D., Adriana D. Briscoe, and Robert D. Reed. “The benefit of being a social butterfly: communal roosting deters predation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 279.1739 (2012): 2769–2776.

Brief Summary: This article studies communal roosting in butterflies, I’m not sure if we want to focus specifically on avian communal roosting, but since the Wikipedia article is “Communal Roosting I think we should make sure to not forget that other species roost. The study shows that decreased predation and NOT information sharing is the evolutionary benefit to communal roosting in vine-butterflies

Rhumke (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Overlap with Information centre hypothesis
There is considerable overlap between this article and recently created article Information centre hypothesis. Interested editors might wish to discuss the possibility either of a merge, or if two article are retained, then a shift of detail about ICH from this article to that one, with just a brief summary and a Main link left in the section about it here, using summary style. Mathglot (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See also WP:REDUNDANT and WP:CONTENTFORK.

Merge proposal
I think it's clear from the talk sections at Talk:Information centre hypothesis, that that article is an unintentional redundant content fork of Communal roosting. In my opinion, Information centre hypothesis should be merged into this article.

The alternative would be to keep two separate articles, and follow summary style here at "Communal roosting", reducing the content of the #ICH section to a fairly brief summary along with a Main link at the top of the section, and merging any non-duplicated detailed content about ICH from the section into the other article. Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notifying top 10 Communal roosting non-bot editors by edits or added text:
 * Notifying top editors at Information centre hypothesis:
 * Notified Projects: WP:ECOLOGY and WP:BIRDS. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article on ICH is well-researched and has an appropriate scope. The ICH article provides an in-depth look at a theory, but it's only one of multiple theories for explaining communal roosting. Merging that article into this one would be information destructive, since much of the detail in that article is inappropriate in this one. Abtract theoretical concepts are generally poorly covered on Wikipedia - the article on ICH actually helps to improve this coverage. In addition, if the theory is proven to be wrong in the future, we can retain the history of the theory at the article on ICH instead of destroying it completely, which often happens on Wikipedia when old theories are shown to be wrong since the old info is just cleaned out completely.Fraenir (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Has enough context to stand separate from the article on communal roosting. Shyamal (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)