An anti-predator response in the great tit (Parus major): Is it tuned to predator risk?

Curio, Eberhard; Klump, Georg M.; Regelmann, Klaus

doi:10.1007/bf00379324

Cited by 97 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, approaching stalking predators may be less risky. These data support findings from other studies of a variety of species that approachers modify their behaviour according to the perceived risk (Curio et al 1983;Pitcher et al 1986;Magurran and Pitcher 1987).…”

Section: The Costs Of Predator Inspectionsupporting

confidence: 81%

The costs and benefits of predator inspection behaviour in Thomson's gazelles

Fitzgibbon¹

1994

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When Thomson's gazelles (Gazella thomsoni) detect stalking predators, such as cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) and lions (Panthera leo), they often approach and follow the predator for up to 72 min (average 14 rain). Coursing predators are rarely approached. Gazelle groups were more likely to approach cheetahs if the groups were larger, if the vegetation was low, or if the cheetahs came closer to the group. Immature gazelles were more likely to approach than adults, and a higher proportion of group members participated in inspection behaviour in small groups than in large ones. Gazelles approached closer in less risky situations: if they were in larger groups or if the vegetation was low. Inspection behaviour caused cheetahs to move further between rests and between hunting attempts. Approaching cheetahs was risky, particularly for younger gazelles (probability of being killed while inspecting a cheetah was 1 in 5000 approaches for adults and 1 in 417 approaches for halfgrown/adolescent gazelles), and the risks were higher than monitoring cheetahs from a distance. The time costs of predator inspection were also considerable (less than 4.2% of daylight time budget), suggesting that the benefits must be substantial to offset these costs. The results suggested that inspection behaviour was multifunctional, causing stalking predators to move out of the vicinity, enabling gazelles to monitor the predators' movements, and providing an opportunity, particularly for younger animals, to learn about predators. By approaching, gazelles also inform predators that they have been detected and alert other gazelles to the predators' presence.

show abstract

Section: The Costs Of Predator Inspectionsupporting

confidence: 81%

The costs and benefits of predator inspection behaviour in Thomson's gazelles

Fitzgibbon¹

1994

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings that alpha males returned before the adult females are in accordance with earlier observations (Curio et al 1983, Griesser & Ekman 2005 and may be explained as mate protection (e.g. Hogstad 1995).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Rytkönen & Seppola (1995) found that responses towards the Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum were generally more intense than those towards the Sparrowhawk. Similarly, Curio et al (1983) found that Great Tit not only differentiated between different orders of birds of prey, but also among different genera of owls. Templeton et al (2005) showed that alarm calls of Black-capped Chickadees Parus atricapillus varied with the size of predator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Predator discrimination and anti-predator behaviour by wintering parids: an experimental study

Hogstad

2017

Ornis Norv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Even though birds' perceptions of risk are biased towards starvation avoidance in winter, recognition of the level of threat of a predator is an important precondition. To investigate the ability of three tit species (Blue Cyanistes caeruleus, Great Parus major and Willow Tits Poecile montanus) to recognise dangerous and harmless objects, I studied their mobbing reaction and the latency of the tits to return to the feeder after being exposed to life like models of Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, Siberian Jay Perisoreus infaustus and Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus, birds similar in size (about 30 cm) but differing widely from each other in feeding. The mobbing level was higher and the latency time of each of the tit species were significantly longer after presenting the Sparrowhawk than the Siberian Jay, whereas the woodpecker aroused no specific reaction. The tits apparently recognised the individual predator species and made decisions on their perceptions of the threat level.

show abstract

“…However, recognition of predators differing in the level of danger they represent has been subjected by behavioural studies less often (Patterson et al 1980;Buitron 1983;Curio et al 1983;Jacobsen and Ugelvik 1992;Clemmons and Lambrechts 1992;Rytkönen and Soppela 1995;Kleindorfer et al 2005;Tvardíková and Fuchs 2011;Strnad et al 2012;Nemec and Fuchs 2014). One way to study how animals form the 'predator' category in the field, it is necessary to measure the level of generalization between various modifications of the same species of predator.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Surface texture and priming play important roles in predator recognition by the red-backed shrike in field experiments

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the responses of the nesting red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio) to three dummies of a common nest predator, the Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius), each made from a different material (stuffed, plush, and silicone). The shrikes performed defensive behaviour including attacks on all three dummies. Nevertheless, the number of attacks significantly decreased from the stuffed dummy through the plush dummy and finally to the silicone dummy. Our results show that wild birds use not only colours but also other surface features as important cues for recognition and categorization of other bird species. Moreover, the silicone dummy was attacked only when presented after the stuffed or plush dummy. Thus, we concluded that the shrikes recognized the jay only the stuffed (with feathered surface) and plush (with hairy surface) dummies during the first encounter. Recognition of the silicon dummy (with glossy surface) was facilitated by previous encounters with the more accurate model. This process resembles the effect of perceptual priming, which is widely described in the literature on humans.

show abstract

An anti-predator response in the great tit (Parus major): Is it tuned to predator risk?

Cited by 97 publications

References 24 publications

The costs and benefits of predator inspection behaviour in Thomson's gazelles

The costs and benefits of predator inspection behaviour in Thomson's gazelles

Predator discrimination and anti-predator behaviour by wintering parids: an experimental study

Surface texture and priming play important roles in predator recognition by the red-backed shrike in field experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About