Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 317–323 | Cite as

The hearing of an avian predator and its avian prey

  • G. M. Klump
  • E. Kretzschmar
  • E. Curio
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Summary

Auditory tuning curves of a small songbird, the great tit (Parus major), and of its principal avian predator, the European sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus), were determined by an operant positive reinforcement conditioning procedure, using the method of constant stimuli. Thresholds were measured by the criterion of a 50% correct response and a d′ of 1.5 for intra- and interspecific comparison, respectively. The best frequency of both species was 2 kHz, the hawk being 6.5 dB SPL more sensitive than the tit. Although the high-frequency cutoff was very similar in both species, at 8 kHz the great tit was about 30 dB more sensitive than the sparrowhawk. The hearing abilities of the prey and its predator are discussed with reference to the acoustic alarm communication of great tits confronted with sparrowhawks. Two alarm calls lie in the frequency range of the best hearing of both the hawk and the tits: the mobbing call and a call given in response to a nearby hawk when fleeing from it. In contrast, the “seeet” call, an alarm call given mainly in response to distant flying sparrowhawks, can only be heard well by the tit. The implications of these results for hypotheses concerning the evolution of alarm calls in small songbirds are discussed.

Keywords

Sound Pressure Level Alarm Call Catch Trial Absolute Threshold Spectrum Level 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brenowitz EA (1982) The active space of Red-winged Blackbird song. J Comp Physiol 147:511–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown CH (1982) Ventriloquial and locatable vocalizations in birds. Z Tierpsychol 59:338–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown L, Amadon D (1968) Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. Country Life, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Curio E, Klump GM, Regelmann K (1983) An anti-predator response in the great tit (Parus major): is it tuned to predator risk? Oecologia 60:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dooling RJ (1980) Behaviour and psychophysics of hearing in birds. In: Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Comparative studies of hearing in vertebrates. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 261–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooling RJ (1982) Auditory perception in birds. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller HE (eds) Acoustic communication in birds, vol 1. Production, perception, and design features of sounds. Academic Press, New York London, pp 95–130Google Scholar
  7. Dooling RJ, Zoloth SR, Baylis JR (1978) Auditory sensitivity, equal loudness, temporal resolving power and vocalizations in the House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). J Comp Physiol Psych 92:867–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drent PJ (1983) The functional ethology of territoriality in the Great Tit (Parus major L.). PhD Dissertation, University GroningenGoogle Scholar
  9. Frankenberg E (1981) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing: IV. “Alerting others” and “perception advertisement.” in blackbirds facing an owl. Z Tierpsychol 55:97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geer TA (1978) Effects of nesting sparrowhawks on nesting tits. Condor 80:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geer TA (1982) The selection of tits Parus spp. by sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus. Ibis 124:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glutz von Blotzheim UN, Bauer KM, Bezzel E (1971) Accipiter nisus — Sperber. In: Glutz von Blotzheim UN (ed) Falconiformes. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, vol 4. Akademie, Wiesbaden, pp 415–442Google Scholar
  13. Hienz RD, Sinnot JM, Sachs MB (1977) Auditory sensitivity of the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). J Comp Physiol Psych 91:1365–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hinde RA (1952) The behaviour of the great tit (Parus major) and related species. Behav [Suppl] 2:1–201Google Scholar
  15. Klump GM (1984) Struktur und Funktion der Luftfeind-Alarmrufe der Kohlmeise (Parus major) außerhalb der Brutzeit. PhD Dissertation. Ruhr-Universität BochumGoogle Scholar
  16. Klump GM, Curio E (1983a) Reactions of blue tits Parus caeruleus to hawk models of different sizes. Bird Behav 4:78–81Google Scholar
  17. Klump GM, Curio F (1983b) Why don't spectra of songbirds' vocalizations correspond with the sensitivity maxima of their absolute threshold curves? Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 76:182Google Scholar
  18. Klump GM, Shalter MD (1984) Acoustic behaviour of birds and mammals in the predator context: I. Factors affecting the structure of alarm signals. II. The functional significance of alarm signals and their evolution. Z Tierpsychol 66:189–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latimer W (1977) A comparative study of the songs and alarm calls of some Parus species. Z Tierpsychol 45:414–433Google Scholar
  20. Marler P (1955) Characteristics of some animal calls. Nature 176:6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marler P (1977) The structure of animal communication sounds. In: Bullock TH (ed) Workshop on recognition of complex acoustic signals. (Dahlem Konferenzen Berlin 1976) Abacon, Berlin, pp 17–35Google Scholar
  22. Marten K, Marler P (1977) Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalizations. I. Temperate habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Odum EP (1942) Annual cycle of the black-capped chickadee. Part 3. Auk 59:499–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrins CM, Geer TA (1980) The effect of sparrowhawks on tit populations. Ardea 68:133–142Google Scholar
  25. Swets JA (1964) Signal detection and recognition by human observers. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Trainer JE (1946) The auditory acuity of certain birds. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  27. Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Klump
    • 1
  • E. Kretzschmar
    • 1
  • E. Curio
    • 1
  1. 1.Arbeitsgruppe für Verhaltensforschung, Fakultät für BiologieRuhr-Universität BochumBochum 1Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations