Are chickadees good listeners? Antipredator responses to raptor vocalizations

Billings, Alexis C.; Greene, Erick; Jensen, Sophia Maria De La Lucia

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.09.004

Cited by 23 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Laiolo et al (2011) demonstrated the positive effect of surrounding bird diversity on the vocal repertory size of 2 mimicking species, the Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) and Thekla Lark (G. theklae). Billings et al (2015) showed that some chickadees (Poecile spp.) produce different vocal responses (alarm and mobbing calls) when presented with calls of different raptors that represent different types of predation threats.…”

Section: Principles Of Soundscape Ecology Related To Avian Ecology Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons Between Autonomous Acoustic Recordings and Avian Point Counts in Open Woodland Savanna

Alquezar¹,

Machado²

2015

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Principles Of Soundscape Ecology Related To Avian Ecology Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons Between Autonomous Acoustic Recordings and Avian Point Counts in Open Woodland Savanna

Alquezar¹,

Machado²

2015

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Captive research has demonstrated that primates learn more quickly and retain information longer in visual rather than acoustic modes (e.g., D'Amato & Colombo, 1985;Fritz, Mishkin, & Saunders, 2005;Munoz-Lopez, Mohedano-Moriano, & Insausti, 2010;Wright, 2007). Additionally, visual cues provide direct information about a predator's identity, location, movements, and behavior, whereas acoustic cues are more ambiguous, leaving prey unable to confirm the predator's location or behavior (Billings, Greene, & Lucia Jensen, 2015). As a result, primates may exhibit weaker anti-predator responses in the auditory than visual sensory domain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model vs. playback experiments: The impact of sensory mode on predator‐specific escape responses in saki monkeys

Adams

Kitchen

2020

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although experimentally simulating predator presence helps improve sample sizes in studies of free‐ranging animals, few studies have examined whether auditory playbacks and visual models produce similar results. Additionally, it is unclear if anti‐predator strategies are specific to predator hunting styles in understudied Neotropical pitheciid primates, limiting what we can generalize about this phenomenon across this taxonomic order. We conducted predator simulation experiments to assess whether wild Rylands' bald‐faced saki monkeys (Pithecia rylandsi) recognize predators based solely on acoustic cues, exhibit predator‐specific responses to different predator types, and vary responses to presentations in different sensory modes. In our playback experiments, sakis had weak responses to non‐predator control vocalizations compared to jaguar growls and harpy eagle shrieks. In most predator playbacks, subjects' first glance corresponded to the direction from which simulated predators would typically attack (above vs. below). However, although sakis exhibited appropriate movement responses to harpy playbacks (i.e., descending canopy), they exhibited no clear movement patterns when presented with jaguar playbacks. In contrast, jaguar model experiments consistently elicited fast approaches, mobbing‐style responses, and long alarm calling bouts. Thus, if we had relied on playbacks alone, we might have concluded that sakis have only generalized responses to terrestrial ambush predators. In fact, in all variables measured (e.g., latency, number of calls, and response duration), models of both predator species elicited stronger reactions than playbacks. Results indicate that bald‐faced sakis can identify predators based solely on vocalizations, but do not exhibit predator‐specific escape responses to terrestrial predators based on acoustic cues alone. The differential response to playbacks and models calls into question the reliability of using acoustic‐only stimuli to assess the specificity of anti‐predator behavior to predator hunting styles in some primate species.

show abstract

“…, Templeton & Greene , Nocera & Ratcliffe , Billings et al . ). In Europe, the Eurasian Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum (hereafter Pygmy Owl) also specializes in feeding on birds (Solheim , Kullberg , Sotnar et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Mobbing can be beneficial and may cause a predator to leave an area (the 'move-on hypothesis'; Curio 1978, Pettifor 1990, Flasskamp 1994, Pavey & Smyth 1998, but may also be costly by increasing the risk of injury or death to the mobbing individual (Curio & Regelmann 1986, Sordahl 1990, Dugatkin & Godin 1992. Animals adjust the strength of their mobbing behaviour according to the perceived risk associated with the predator's threat level (Koboroff et al 2013, Billings et al 2015, Dutour et al 2016.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Owls in the genus Glaucidium prey mainly on passerine birds, making them particularly suited to study the mobbing behaviour in passerine communities. For example, in tropical forests of southern Brazil, the Ferruginous Pygmy Owl Glaucidium brasilianum is often mobbed by a wide range of avian species (Shalter 1978, Motta-Junior 2007, Sandoval & Wilson 2012, Cunha et al 2013, Tilgar & Moks 2015, as is the Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium californicum in North America (Deppe et al 2003, Templeton et al 2005, Templeton & Greene 2007, Nocera & Ratcliffe 2010, Billings et al 2015. In Europe, the Eurasian Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum (hereafter Pygmy Owl) also specializes in feeding on birds (Solheim 1984, Kullberg 1995, Sotnar et al 2015, including fledglings (Likachev 1971, Kellom€ aki 1977, Sotnar et al 2015, some of which may be pulled from nest-holes (M€ ockel & M€ ockel 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mobbing behaviour in a passerine community increases with prevalence in predator diet

Dutour

Léna

Lengagne

2017

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobbing behaviour against predators is well documented but less is known about the factors influencing variation in behavioural response between prey species. We conducted a series of playback experiments to examine how the mobbing responses of prey species differed according to their relative risk of predation by the Eurasian Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum, a predator of passerines. We found that mobbing among 22 passerine prey species was positively correlated with their prevalence in the Pygmy Owl diet. To compare mobbing behaviour between two seasons, we conducted playback experiments during spring (breeding season) and autumn (non‐breeding season). Contrary to previous studies, we found that mobbing intensity was greater during autumn than in spring. Our study shows a differential mobbing response of 22 species to the calls from one predator species and underscores the importance of considering seasonal variation in mobbing behaviour. Mobbing response differences observed among bird species strongly suggest different cooperation behaviour at the community level.

show abstract

Are chickadees good listeners? Antipredator responses to raptor vocalizations

Cited by 23 publications

References 35 publications

Comparisons Between Autonomous Acoustic Recordings and Avian Point Counts in Open Woodland Savanna

Comparisons Between Autonomous Acoustic Recordings and Avian Point Counts in Open Woodland Savanna

Model vs. playback experiments: The impact of sensory mode on predator‐specific escape responses in saki monkeys

Mobbing behaviour in a passerine community increases with prevalence in predator diet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About