Piping as a display of dominance by wintering Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus

Although Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus wintering in the Exe Estuary performed the piping display in any type of aggressive encounter, it was predominantly observed in two contexts. ‘Solitary piping’ occurred when one individual piped without an obvious opponent being in the immediate vicinity. In ‘piping ceremonies’, two or more individuals piped at each other for prolonged periods at close distance. Prolonged contests over mussels were usually won by the individual that had initially started piping. The most aggressive and successful birds (the dominants), engaged most often in solitary piping and piping ceremonies, using up to 10% of their time this way. This suggests that the behaviour was associated with dominance rank. The hypothesis is that the two birds are likely to start piping if their relative status has not already been established, so that a quick end to a dispute over a mussel or feeding site is not achieved. A dominant individual performs solitary piping from a distance to suppress the aggressive activities of other birds within its feeding range. If this signal fails, the dominant may join the ceremony, explaining why three was the most frequent number of birds involved in piping ceremonies. The ‘butterfly’ flight, used mainly by apparently dominant birds as they arrived on the feeding grounds, may signal their high status to birds already there. The outcome of several piping ceremonies involving birds of known dominance was consistent with this explanation. The location of piping ceremonies involving only two birds (interpreted as piping ceremonies not joined by dominants) at the extremities of the feeding ranges of the most dominant individuals is also consistent with this hypothesis, because this is where their dominance would be expected to decline and would therefore be more likely to be contested. This explanation of piping and butterfly displays assumes that individuals can recognize other individuals or quickly assess their dominance. Since dominant individuals were attacked less often than subdominants and attacking birds were rebuffed less than would be expected if recognition did not occur, we suggest that some form of dominance or individual recognition did exist. The width of the white collar did not correlate with dominance, but the individual variations in this feature may enable birds to distinguish each other and thus learn their relative status. It is intriguing that the diplomatist posture, which is typically used to rebuff misguided attackers, seems almost designed to give the opponent a particularly clear view of the white collar.