Titmouse calling and foraging are affected by head and body orientation of cat predator models and possible experience with real cats

Book, D. L.; Freeberg, Todd M.

doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0888-7

Cited by 33 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seed‐taking rates of tufted titmice and white‐breasted nuthatches did not appear to be associated with owl stimulus intensity or with background noise. Seed‐taking rates in these species tended to decrease in the context of threatening or risky stimuli in previous studies that presented visual predator stimuli to prey birds (Bartmess‐LeVasseur et al, ; Book & Freeberg, ; Cantwell, Johnson, Kaschel, Love, & Freeberg, ; Freeberg, Krama, Vrublevska, Krams, & Kullberg, ; Kyle & Freeberg, ). Perhaps foraging behavior in these species is more sensitive to predator stimuli in the visual, rather than the acoustic, domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traffic noise likely reaches a wide range of species and populations throughout the world, but we still know relatively little about how it affects anti‐predator behavior of populations. We tested for possible effects of traffic noise on responses to predator acoustic cues in Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white‐breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) near 14 independent feeding stations in eastern Tennessee. We compared anti‐predator calling and seed‐taking behavior in response to playbacks of predator stimuli (screech owl calls) at sites naturally exposed to traffic noise and at sites that faced relatively little traffic noise. The screech owl call playback was designed to simulate the approach of this dangerous predator to a feeder being used by these small songbirds. We found that chickadees responded consistently to the owl stimuli across different levels of traffic noise. However, titmice, and nuthatches exhibited different behavioral responses to the predator stimulus, suggesting that traffic noise masked these low‐frequency predator calls. Overall, chickadees and nuthatches showed the broadest anti‐predator behavioral responses in comparison to titmice, corroborating earlier published work with an Indiana population. Finally, populations exposed to traffic noise overall seemed less able to detect predator cues potentially masked by that noise, and future work will need to assess likely seasonal variation in these responses as well as species‐level variation in anti‐predator responses in mixed‐species groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regardless of the meaning coded in the call variation, the results demonstrate a graded system of signaling based on the duration, rate, proportion, and center frequency of “LF/churr/rattle/jar” notes in the vocal response of the oriental tit. This is reminiscent of signaling observed in parids from genus Beolophus and Poecile where the higher level of threat by a predator is coded in the higher number of D notes in their vocal response to predators (Book & Freeberg, ; Courter & Ritchison, ; Sieving, Hetrick, & Avery, ; Soard & Ritchison, ; Templeton et al, ). The suggested role of the number of “LF/churr/rattle/jar” notes in coding information about predators by the oriental tit can be extracted from the results reported by Suzuki (Suzuki, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…This kind of alarm system can help prey animals to share information about predators and to recruit prey individuals into a mobbing group (Hurd, ; Lima & Dill, ; Peres, ; Cooper & Blumstein, ). Similar alarm communication systems exist in birds (e.g., Carlson, Templeton, & Healy , ; Ficken & Popp, ; Gill & Bierema, ; Suzuki, , ) where various characteristics of the alarm vocalizations may carry information about predator type (Fasanella & Fernández, ; Griesser, ; Naguib et al, ; Yorzinski & Vehrencamp, ), predator size (Templeton, Greene, & Davis, ), degree of threat (Soard & Ritchinson, ; Carlson et al, ), predator behavior (Griesser, ), or a predator's facial orientation (Book & Freeberg, ; Freeberg, Krama, Vrublevska, Krams, & Kullberg, ). The information about the predator may be coded in the use of different types of calls/notes and in the number/proportion of notes of each type as well as in detailed temporal and frequency characteristics of the notes (Templeton et al, ; Carlson et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Experimental study of alarm calls of the oriental tit (Parus minor) toward different predators and reactions they induce in nestlings

Lee

Yang

et al. 2020

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anti‐predatory strategies of birds are diverse and may include predator‐specific alarm calls. For example, oriental tit (Parus minor) parents can distinguish snakes from other predators and produce snake‐specific referential vocalizations ("jar" call) when a snake poses a threat to their nest. The “jar” call has a very specific function to induce fledging of nestlings close to fledging age. This reaction ensures nestlings' survival in natural encounters with snakes that are capable of entering nest cavities and kill entire broods. Sciurid rodents, like chipmunks, may pose a similar threat to cavity‐nesting birds. We explored the hypothesis that parents use the fledging‐inducing alarm vocalizations in this situation, because chipmunks, like snakes, can kill the brood upon entering the nest cavity. We compared alarm calls of parents toward two predators (chipmunk and snake) who pose a similar threat to the nestlings in a nest cavity, and toward an avian predator (Eurasian jay) who cannot enter nest cavities and poses no threat to the nestlings in a nest. Our results show that the vocal responses of oriental tits were different among the three predators. This suggests that the acoustic properties of vocal responses to predators are different between predators of a similar hunting strategy (nest‐cavity entering). The playback of recorded vocal responses of parents to chipmunks did not trigger the fledging of old nestlings, whereas the vocalizations toward a snake did, as shown by earlier studies. Our study suggests that the vocal response of parents does not carry information about the ability of predators to enter the nest cavity and confirms the special status of alarm calls triggered by snakes.

show abstract

“…Recent work with tufted titmice, Baeolophus bicolor , indicated that birds reduced foraging when a mask‐wearing human (Freeberg et al. ) or a cat model (Book & Freeberg ) faced the feeding station the birds were using, compared to when the potential predator was not facing the feeding station. Furthermore, titmice called more when the mask‐wearing human faced toward, rather than away from, the feeding station (Freeberg et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging and Calling Behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) in Response to the Head Orientation of Potential Predators

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When animals detect predators they modify their behavior to avoid predation. However, less is known about whether prey species modify their behavior in response to predator body and behavioral cues. Recent studies indicated that tufted titmice, a small songbird, decreased their foraging behavior and increased their calling rates when they detected a potential predator facing toward a feeder they were using, compared to a potential predator facing away from that feeder. Here, we tested whether related Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis, were also sensitive not just to the presence of a predator model, but to its facial/head orientation. Although chickadees are closely related to titmice, recent studies in different populations suggest chickadees respond to risky contexts involving predators differently than titmice. We conducted two field studies near feeders the birds were exploiting. In Study One, a mask-wearing human observer stood near the feeder. In Study Two, a model of a domestic cat was positioned near the feeder. In both studies, the potential threatening stimulus either faced toward or faced away from the feeder. Chickadees avoided the feeder more in both studies when the potential predator was present, and showed strongest feeder avoidance when the potential predator faced toward the feeder. Chickadee calling behavior was also affected by the facial orientation of the potential predator in Study 1. These results suggest that, like titmice, chickadees exhibit predation-risk-sensitive foraging and calling behavior, in relation to facial and head orientation of potential threats. These small birds seem to attend to the likely visual space of potential predators. Sensitivity to predator cues like behavior and body posture must become more central to our theories and models of anti-predator behavioral systems.

show abstract

Titmouse calling and foraging are affected by head and body orientation of cat predator models and possible experience with real cats

Cited by 33 publications

References 50 publications

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

Experimental study of alarm calls of the oriental tit (Parus minor) toward different predators and reactions they induce in nestlings

Foraging and Calling Behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) in Response to the Head Orientation of Potential Predators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About