Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 258–261 | Cite as

Pursuit-deterrent communication between prey animals and timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus): the response of snakes to harassment displays

Original Article


A thorough understanding of communication requires an evaluation of both the signaler and receiver. Most analyses of prey–predator communication are incomplete because they examine only the behavior of the prey. Predators in these systems may be understudied because they are perceived as less tractable research subjects, due to their more cryptic hunting behaviors and secretive lifestyles. For example, research on interactions between rodents and rattlesnakes has focused on the behavior of rodent signalers, while responses of snakes have been virtually unexamined. Rattlesnakes are ambush predators, and capture rodents by waiting at foraging sites for long periods of time. In this study, I take advantage of the sedentary nature of this foraging strategy and use fixed videography to record natural encounters between timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) and their prey. Three different prey species were found to exhibit conspicuous visual displays to snakes, both when snakes were actively foraging, and when they were basking. After receiving displays, foraging snakes left their ambush sites and moved long distances before locating subsequent ambush sites, indicating that they responded to displays by abandoning attempts to ambush prey in the vicinity of signalers. This study represents the first quantitative analysis of the response of free-ranging snakes to signals from their prey, and elucidates a technique by which such quantitative data can be more easily obtained.


Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridusPursuit-deterrent signal Predator–prey communication Anti-predator display Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatusGray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis


  1. Allison PD (1995) Survival analysis using the SAS system: a practical guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouskila A (1995) Interactions between predation risk and competition—a field study of kangaroo rats and snakes. Ecology 76:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Caro TM (1995) Pursuit-deterrence revisited. Trends Ecol Evol 10:500–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark RW (2004) The foraging ecology and social behavior of timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus). Ph.D. thesis, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. da Silva KB, Kramer DL, Weary DM (1994) Context-specific alarm calls of the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Can J Zool 72:1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. da Silva KB, Mahan C, da Silva J (2002) The trill of the chase: Eastern chipmunks call to warn kin. J Mammal 83:546–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ficken MS, Popp J (1996) A comparative analysis of passerine mobbing calls. Auk 113:370–380Google Scholar
  9. Frankenberg E (1981) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing 4: alerting others and perception advertisement in blackbirds facing an owl. Zeit Fur Tierpsychol 55:97–118Google Scholar
  10. Greene HW (1992) The behavioral and ecological context for pitviper evolution. In: Campbell JA, Brodie ED Jr (eds) Biology of the Pitvipers. Selva, Tyler, TX, pp 107–117Google Scholar
  11. Greene HW (1997) Snakes: the evolution of mystery in nature. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Hasson O (1991) Pursuit-deterrent signals: communication between prey and predator. Trends Ecol Evol 6:325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Hennessy DF, Owings DH (1988) Rattlesnakes create a context for localizing their search for potential prey. Ethology 77:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klauber LM (1972) Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Koprowski JL (1996) Natal philopatry, communal nesting, and kinship in fox squirrels and gray squirrels. J Mammal 77:1006–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lishak RS (1984) Alarm vocalizations of adult gray squirrels. J Mammal 65:681–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loughry WJ (1987) The dynamics of snake harassment by black-tailed prairie dogs. Behaviour 103:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loughry WJ (1989) Discrimination of snakes by two populations of black-tailed prairie dogs. J Mammal 70:627–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostreiher R (2003) Is mobbing altruistic or selfish behaviour? Anim Behav 66:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Owings DH, Coss RG (1977) Snake mobbing by california ground squirrels: adaptive variation and ontogeny. Behaviour 62:50–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Randall JA, Matocq MD (1997) Why do kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spectabilis) footdrum at snakes? Behav Ecol 8:404–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reinert HK, Cundall D (1982) An improved surgical implantation method for radio-tracking snakes. Copeia 3:702–705Google Scholar
  24. Reinert HK, Cundall D, Bushar LM (1984) Foraging behavior of the timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus. Copeia 1984:976–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rowe MP, Owings DH (1978) The meaning of the sound of rattling by rattlesnakes to california ground squirrels. Behaviour 66:252–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SAS (2003) The SAS system, version 9.01, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  27. Shelley EL, Blumstein DT (2005) The evolution of vocal alarm communication in rodents. Behav Ecol 16:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swaisgood RR, Owings DH, Rowe MP (1999) Conflict and assessment in a predator-prey system: ground squirrels versus rattlesnakes. Anim Behav 57:1033–1044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Swaisgood RR, Rowe MP, Owings DH (2003) Antipredator responses of California ground squirrels to rattlesnakes and rattling sounds: the roles of sex, reproductive parity, and offspring age in assessment and decision-making rules. Behav Ecol Sociobio 55:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Towers SR, Coss RG (1991) Antisnake behavior of columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus). J Mammal 72:776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations