Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 30, Issue 3–4, pp 283–289 | Cite as

Vigilance and foraging substrate: anti-predatory considerations in a non-standard environment

  • Steven L. Lima
Article

Summary

The commonly studied “standard” anti-predatory environment presents animals with spatially-distinct feeding sites and refuges from attack, neither of which necessarily obstructs predator detection. In contrast, tree-trunks provide animals with a markedly “non-standard” environment in which the foraging substrate itself may be a refuge from attack that unavoidably obstructs predator detection. Thus anti-predatory behavior in this environment should be influenced not only by a perceived risk of attack, but also by the nature of the refuge/foraging substrate itself. Downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens) are a common tree-trunk foraging animal, and an experimental analysis of their behavior suggests that they respond appropriately to their non-standard anti-predatory environment. In particular, anti-predatory vigilance varies strongly with changes in tree trunk diameter. Two modes of vigilance were apparent. In “stationary” vigilance, woodpeckers maintained the position of their feet while rotating their bodies side-to-side to peer around the trunk; “mobile” vigilance involved movement around the trunk itself. Both the frequency and angle of rotation of stationary vigilance increased with trunk diameter, as did the frequency of mobile vigilance. The woodpeckers also held their heads farther away from the trunk surface as diameter increased. All of these measures of vigilance increased under a greater perceived risk of predation. As might be expected given these results, downy woodpeckers avoided thick trunks; they did not, however, prefer the thinnest (least obstructive) available trunks. These preferences may reflect the influence of trunk diameter on thermo-ecological and/or anti-predator considerations not related to vigilance. Overall, this arboreal environment provides an unusual perspective on anti-predator decision-making with several implications for tree-trunk foraging animals in general.

Keywords

Experimental Analysis Tree Trunk Trunk Diameter Feeding Site Stationary Vigilance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakken GS (1990) Estimating the effect of wind on avian metabolic rate with standard operative temperature. Auk 107:587–597Google Scholar
  2. Barnard CJ (1980) Flock feeding and time budgets in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus L.). Anim Behav 28:295–309Google Scholar
  3. Bowers MA (1988) Seed removal experiments on desert rodents: the microhabitat by moonlight effect. J Mammal 69:201–204Google Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Smith RJ, Wirtz EO (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76:408–415Google Scholar
  5. Caraco T, Martindale S, Pulliam HR (1980) Avian time budgets and distance to cover. Auk 97:872–875Google Scholar
  6. Dill LM, Houtman R (1989) The influence of distance to refuge on flight initiation distance in the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Can J Zool 67:232–235Google Scholar
  7. Ekman J (1987) Exposure and time use in willow tit flocks: the cost of subordination. Anim Behav 35:445–452Google Scholar
  8. Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev 64:13–33Google Scholar
  9. Elgar MA, Burren PJ, Posen M (1984) Vigilance and perception of flock size in foraging house sparrows (Passer domesticus L.). Behaviour 90:215–223Google Scholar
  10. Grubb TC Jr (1977) Weather-dependent foraging behavior of some birds wintering in a deciduous woodland: horizontal adjustments. Condor 79:271–274Google Scholar
  11. Grubb TC Jr, Greenwald L (1982) Sparrows and a brushpile: foraging responses to different combinations of predation risk and energy cost. Anim Behav 30:637–640Google Scholar
  12. Helfman GS (1989) Predation-risk-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish-trumpetfish interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:47–58Google Scholar
  13. Hogstad O (1988) Social rank and antipredator behavior of willow tits Parus montanus in winter flocks. Ibis 130:45–56Google Scholar
  14. Holmes WG (1984) Predation risk and foraging behavior of the hoary marmot in Alaska. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:293–301Google Scholar
  15. Kilham L (1983) Life history studies of woodpeckers of eastern North America. Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. Knight SK, Knight RL (1986) Vigilance patterns in bald eagles feeding in groups. Auk 103:263–272Google Scholar
  17. Kotler BP, Brown JS (1988) Environmental heterogeneity and the coexistence of desert rodents. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:281–307Google Scholar
  18. Lima SL (1987) Vigilance while feeding and its relation to the risk of predation. J Theor Biol 124:303–316Google Scholar
  19. Lima SL (1990a) Protective cover and the use of space: different strategies in finches. Oikos 58:151–158Google Scholar
  20. Lima SL (1990b) The influence of models on the interpretation of vigilance. In: Bekoff M, Jamieson D (eds) Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behavior: vol. 2. Explanation, evolution and adaptation. Westview, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  21. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  22. Metcalfe NB (1984) The effects of habitat on the vigilance of shorebirds: is visibility important? Anim Behav 32:981–985Google Scholar
  23. Moermond TC (1986) A mechanistic approach to the study of communities: Anolis lizards and birds. Am Zool 26:23–37Google Scholar
  24. Newman JA, Caraco T (1987) Foraging, predation hazard and patch use in grey squirrels. Anim Behav 35:1804–1813Google Scholar
  25. Newman JA, Recer GM, Zwicker SM, Caraco T (1988) Effects of predation hazard on foraging “constraints”: patch use strategies in grey squirrels. Oikos 53:93–97Google Scholar
  26. Norberg RA (1981) Why foraging birds in trees should climb and hop upwards rather than downwards. Ibis 123:281–288Google Scholar
  27. Peters WD, Grubb TC Jr (1983) An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the downy woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64:1437–1443Google Scholar
  28. Piper WH (1990) Exposure to predators and access to food in wintering white-throated sparrows Zonotrichia albicollis. Behaviour 112:284–298Google Scholar
  29. Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65:1820–1827Google Scholar
  30. Scott NJ Jr, Wilson DE, Jones C, Andrews RM (1976) The choice of perch dimensions by lizards of the genus Anolis (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Iguanidae). J Herpetol 10:75–84Google Scholar
  31. Sih A (1987) Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A (eds) Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England, Hanover New Hampshire, pp 203–224Google Scholar
  32. Sullivan KA (1984a) Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour 91:294–311Google Scholar
  33. Sullivan KA (1984b) The advantages of social foraging in downy woodpeckers. Anim Behav 32:16–22Google Scholar
  34. Todd IA, Cowie RJ (1990) Measuring the risk of predation in an energy currency: field experiments with foraging blue tits, Parus caeruleus. Anim Behav 40:112–117Google Scholar
  35. Waite TA (1987) Dominance-specific vigilance in the tufted titmouse: effects of social context. Condor 89:932–935Google Scholar
  36. Wilkinson L (1988) SYSTAT: The system for statistics. SYSTAT Inc, Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  37. Ydenberg RC, Dill LM (1986) The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv Study Behav 16:229–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven L. Lima
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesIndiana State UniversityTerre HauteUSA

Personalised recommendations