Predator stimuli and calling behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis)

Bartmess-LeVasseur, Julia N.; Branch, Carrie L.; Browning, Sheri A.; Owens, Jessica L.; Freeberg, Todd M.

doi:10.1007/s00265-010-0935-y

Cited by 66 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Work with several chickadee species has found that birds vary the note composition of their chick-a-dee calls in contexts involving perched avian predator stimuli (e.g., Ficken et al 1994;Baker and Becker 2002;Templeton et al 2005;Bartmess-LeVasseur et al 2010). We have now extended earlier findings involving perched predator stimuli to the realm of flying predator stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Furthermore, chick-a-dee calls in blackcapped chickadees have also been shown to be associated with avian predators' characteristics through changes in the specific patterning and composition of note types in calls (Apel 1985;Templeton et al 2005). Similar findings have been obtained in experimental studies with Carolina chickadees (e.g., food detection: Mahurin and Freeberg 2008;responses to perched predators: Soard and Ritchison 2009;Bartmess-LeVasseur et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…In parid species, there is much correlational data to suggest that high frequency notes are produced in contexts of avian predators flying near or through the area of parid flocks (e.g., Ficken and Witkin 1977;Sullivan 1985;Ficken 1990;Freeberg 2008). Individuals of different parid species alter the note composition of their chick-a-dee calls or the acoustic structure of the notes making up the calls, or both, in studies involving the experimental manipulation of perched predator stimuli, whether live hawks and owls, taxidermic mounts, or plastic models (e.g., Apel 1985;Ficken et al 1994;Baker and Becker 2002;Templeton et al 2005;Nolen and Lucas 2009;Soard and Ritchison 2009;Bartmess-LeVasseur et al 2010;Courter and Ritchison 2010;Sieving et al 2010). Earlier experimental studies with flying predator stimuli indicated that parids increased production of alarm calls and altered the acoustic properties of those alarm calls under conditions of high threat (Sullivan 1985;Alatalo and Helle 1990;Hogstad 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Within each of these three locations, each site was separated from the nearest adjacent site by approximately 400 m, ensuring that each site constituted an individual flock in this population (Bartmess-LeVasseur et al 2010).…”

Section: Study Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These altered behaviors due to attending to a threat often include alarm calling or calling in the context of mobbing (e.g., Marler 1955Marler , 2004Curio 1978). One group of species that has been heavily studied for how its calls change in such alarm or mobbing contexts is the Paridaethe chickadees, tits, and titmice (e.g., Baker and Becker 2002;Templeton et al 2005;Nolen and Lucas 2009;Soard and Ritchison 2009;Bartmess-LeVasseur et al 2010;Courter and Ritchison 2010;Sieving et al 2010). In parids (as well as with other groups of species), previous research on alarm calls in the context of predator stimuli has typically been conducted using stationary, perched predator modelsincluding live predators, taxidermic mounts, and plastic models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Chick-a-dee call variation in the context of “flying” avian predator stimuli: a field study of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis)

Zachau

Freeberg

2012

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chick-a-dee calls function in social organization in Poecile (chickadee) species. Recent field and aviary studies have found that variation in chick-a-dee calls relates to the type or proximity of avian predator, or level of threat. Earlier studies on calls in the context of predator stimuli have typically used stationary and perched predator models. For chickadees and other small songbirds, more frequently detected and more dangerous avian predatory stimuli are flying predators. In the present study, we tested whether simulated flying avian predator and control models influenced chick-a-dee calling behavior of wild Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis. At 20 independent field sites, chickadee subjects were presented with wooden models that were painted to resemble either a predatory sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) or a blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) and that were made to "fly" down a zip line near a feeding station chickadees were using. The note composition of chick-a-dee calls was affected by both the flight of stimuli and type of model. Call variation in this flying predator context suggests interesting similarities and differences with experimental findings with congeners. Finally, increased production of certain notes to the flying of both model types provides support for a "Better Safe than Sorry" strategy. When costs of alarm calling are low but costs of discriminating potentially serious threats may be extremely high, individuals should err on the side of caution, and alarm call to any potentially threatening stimulus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Study Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Chick-a-dee call variation in the context of “flying” avian predator stimuli: a field study of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis)

Zachau

Freeberg

2012

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Behavioral responses to conspecific mobbing calls are predator‐specific in great tits (Parus major)

Kalb

Randler

2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When facing a predator, animals need to perform an appropriate antipredator behavior such as escaping or mobbing to prevent predation. Many bird species exhibit distinct mobbing behaviors and vocalizations once a predator has been detected. In some species, mobbing calls transmit information about predator type, size, and threat, which can be assessed by conspecifics. We recently found that great tits (Parus major) produce longer D calls with more elements and longer intervals between elements when confronted with a sparrowhawk, a high‐threat predator, in comparison to calls produced in front of a less‐threatening tawny owl. In the present study, we conducted a playback experiment to investigate if these differences in mobbing calls elicit different behavioral responses in adult great tits. We found tits to have a longer latency time and to keep a greater distance to the speaker when sparrowhawk mobbing calls were broadcast. This suggests that tits are capable of decoding information about predator threat in conspecific mobbing calls. We further found a tendency for males to approach faster and closer than females, which indicates that males are willing to take higher risks in a mobbing context than females.

show abstract

A possible phylogenetically conserved urgency response of great tits (Parus major) towards allopatric mobbing calls

Randler

2012

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Black-capped chickadees Poecile atricapillus alter the number of D notes of their chick-a-dee call to reflect urgency and threat. Here, I tested whether heterospecific responses of an allopatric species to these mobbing calls occur. Heterospecific chickadee mobbing calls and songs from North America were broadcast to European great tits (Parus major) and compared with conspecific mobbing calls. During conspecific mobbing playbacks, all great tits approached the speaker, during the heterospecific "chick-a-dee" playbacks, 63.3% individuals approached the speaker, while during the song playback, only 31.3% of the great tits approached the speaker. Minimum distances of great tits were lower during conspecific mobbing calls compared to allopatric chick-a-dee calls and to allopatric chickadee song. Also, minimum distances were lower when comparing allopatric chick-a-dee calls and chickadee song. Great tits approached the speaker on average down to (mean ± SE) 20.0±1.8 m during playbacks of 1-4 D elements, to 17.7 ± 2.0 m during playbacks of 5-7 D elements and down to 11.5±2.0 m during playbacks of 8-11 D elements. The number of D notes was inversely related to minimum distance. Thus, the urgency message encoded in the D notes was perceived also by an allopatric but phylogenetically related European species, suggesting that the heterospecific response is possibly phylogenetically conserved.

show abstract

Predator stimuli and calling behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis)

Cited by 66 publications

References 32 publications

Chick-a-dee call variation in the context of “flying” avian predator stimuli: a field study of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis)

Chick-a-dee call variation in the context of “flying” avian predator stimuli: a field study of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis)

Behavioral responses to conspecific mobbing calls are predator‐specific in great tits (Parus major)

A possible phylogenetically conserved urgency response of great tits (Parus major) towards allopatric mobbing calls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About