Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42144599›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2026

Sibling cooperation in boreal owls during the post-fledging dependence period.

Marek Kouba, Simona Stehlíková Sovadinová, Filip Tulis, Michal Ševčík, Jitka Bartošová, Erkki Korpimäki, Luděk Bartoš

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marek KoubaDepartment of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. marekkouba8@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2262-5733
Simona Stehlíková SovadinováDepartment of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0009-0008-9431-5156
Filip TulisDepartment of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-2673-5630
Michal ŠevčíkDepartment of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4533-9887
Jitka BartošováDepartment of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4675-3310
Erkki KorpimäkiSection of Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7596-1955
Luděk BartošInstitute of Animal Science, Department of Ethology, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-2667-5930

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany vertebrates develop in the company of their siblings, a social context that profoundly influences their life histories and phenotypes. While avian begging behaviour in parent-offspring conflict and sibling competition/cooperation have been largely studied in nestlings, the fledglings' begging remains under-researched, despite the continued dependency of young birds throughout the post-fledging dependence period (PFDP). Siblings typically maintain close proximity during the PFDP, a pattern that might be explained by the following four mutually non-exclusive hypotheses: competition over the prey delivered by parents (competition, H1), mutual affection established during the nestling period (cooperation-friendship, H2), various antipredation behaviours (cooperation-antipredation, H3) or begging negotiation about whose need is greater (cooperation-negotiation, H4).

resultsWe radio-tracked 123 boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) fledglings from 34 nests over 6 years in Czechia and Finland and recorded daily inter-sibling distances throughout the PFDP. Distances were longer in Czechia than in Finland during both night (82 ± 81 vs 56 ± 65 m; mean ± SD) and day (75 ± 109 vs 64 ± 86 m). In both areas, distances increased with an augmenting time gap in tracking, siblings' age and the number of present siblings at night but decreased during the day. These consistent patterns across different environments indicate that the life history of the target species prevails over the environmental effects. Consistent with the predictions of the cooperation-antipredation hypothesis (H3), the mean inter-sibling distances were shorter in Finland compared to Czechia during both day and night, and inter-sibling distances were shorter within larger sibling flocks during the day. The cooperation-negotiation hypothesis (H4) is supported by the finding that vocally begging siblings were closer to each other than their non-begging counterparts.

conclusionsOur results demonstrate, for the first time, that sibling cooperation can occur during the PFDP, when offspring are vulnerable to predators, both during diurnal roosting and at night while begging for food. We conclude that the inter-sibling distances in boreal owls during the PFDP are maintained because siblings cooperate through collective antipredation behaviour during diurnal roosting and through collective negotiation over access to the indivisible prey items delivered by their parent during nocturnal activity.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorStrigiformesAnimalsCompetitive BehaviorFinlandNesting BehaviorSiblingsAltruistic behaviourAnti-predation behaviourBegging behaviourBirds of preyHatching asynchronyRadio-telemetryRelatednessSelfish behaviourSibling competitionSibling negotiation

Identifiers

PMID42144599
PMCPMC13352694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.