The difference between night and day: antipredator behavior in birds

Abstract

Animals have evolved sophisticated strategies for avoiding predators during the day. These strategies can vary depending on the type of predator and level of threat. Although nocturnal predation is a major cause of animal mortality, antipredator behavior at night is poorly understood. To investigate how diurnal animals adjust their antipredator behavior during these different conditions, peahens (Pavo cristatus) were exposed to a taxidermy raccoon during the daytime and nighttime. During the day, the peahens emitted loud antipredator calls, extended their necks upward, adopted a preflight posture, and approached the predator; at night, the peahens emitted soft hissing calls, remained stationary, piloerected their feathers, and raised their tails. The results demonstrate that birds adopt radically different antipredator behavior depending on whether the threat occurs in the daytime or nighttime. These different tactics could result from limitations in sensory abilities. Videos showing nocturnal and diurnal antipredator behavior of peafowl are available online

Through their eyes: selective attention in peahens during courtship

“…The taxidermy raccoon was mounted on a skateboard (supplementary material Fig.S2A) and hidden underneath a large container that had a cloth covering one of the sides. A researcher revealed the raccoon by pulling on a fishing line that was attached to the front of the skateboard and pulled the raccoon out of the container (approximately 0.21ms -1 ) through the side with the cloth (Yorzinski and Platt, 2012). The raccoon moved along a track (5m long) that was elevated 0.85m off the ground.…”

Defence tactics cycle with diel microhabitat choice and body temperature in the desert locust,Schistocerca gregaria

“…Phenotypic plasticity in antipredator defences is well known (Blaustein & Whitman, ; Whitman & Blaustein, ), including defence plasticity correlated with individual environmental factors such as changing temperature (Thomas & Blanford, ), photoperiod (Lima et al, ; Yorzinski & Platt, ), microhabitat type (Putman & Clark, ), predator species (Fichtel & Kappeler, ; Suzuki, ; Vilhunen & Hirvonen, ) and threat level (Brown et al, ; Schmitz, ). Less known is how prey apportion defences when multiple factors are changing simultaneously.…”

“…Many animals can adaptively alter their antipredator strategies and tactics to match their current environmental conditions, including temperature (Thomas & Blanford, ), photoperiod (Lima, Rattenborg, Lesku, & Amlaner, ; Yorzinski & Platt, ), microhabitat type (Putman & Clark, ), predator species (Fichtel & Kappeler, ; Suzuki, ; Vilhunen & Hirvonen, ) and threat level (Brown, Rive, Ferrari, & Chivers, ; Schmitz, ). Such flexibility represents phenotypic plasticity in antipredator defence (Blaustein & Whitman, ; Whitman & Blaustein, ).…”

Peacock copulation calls attract distant females

“…Because the females were regularly transported from their enclosure to additional cages (for use in other studies), they were familiar with this process; furthermore, females exhibited normal behavior during the pre-testing period (see below) by consuming food (such as leaves and insects) that was inside the cage (females in 92% and 75% of the control and copulation trials, respectively, consumed food during the pre-testing period). Further details on this captive population are described in Yorzinski & Platt (2012).…”

“…We used crow caws as control stimuli because these calls are regularly heard throughout the study area and are normally emitted at amplitude levels similar to the copulation calls. We chose not to use a different vocalization of peacocks as a control stimuli because peacock courtship vocalizations may function to attract females (see Discussion), peacock alarm calls may attract females because peafowl tend to mob predators (Yorzinski & Platt, 2012), and the function of other types of peacock vocalizations are not well characterized and could not be expected to elicit neutral responses. The male copulation calls were identical to those used in the playback experiments in the wild (three hoots randomly scattered throughout a 1-min period followed by a 1-min period of silence and then repeated) except that they were broadcast at slightly quieter levels (80 dB SPL at 1 m).…”