Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 727–733 | Cite as

Do birds behave according to dynamic risk assessment theory? A feeder experiment

  • Kateřina TvardíkováEmail author
  • Roman Fuchs
Original Paper


Pair-wise preference experiments were used to reveal predator discrimination by four tit species wintering in the Czech Republic. The reactions of the tits to a more dangerous predator (sparrowhawk) and a less dangerous (kestrel) one were compared. The number of visits to a feeder with a predator present expressed the perceived dangerousness of the predator. The tits' behaviour towards the feeders was in agreement with predictions, according to dynamic risk assessment theory. The presence of any predator at the feeder lowered the number of visits to the feeder. Similarly, the tits were judged to have evaluated the sparrowhawk as being more dangerous than the kestrel, as its presence lowered the number of arrivals more than did the kestrel. The duration of stay and number of pecks of individual birds were also used as measures of predator dangerousness. The results not only confirm that tits behave according to dynamic risk assessment theory, but also show the exceptional suitability of preference experiments for the research of predator differentiation and evaluation.


Common kestrel Eurasian sparrowhawk Feeders Pair-wise experiments Predator discrimination Preference experiments Paridae 



The study was supported by grants of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (IAA601410803), and the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports (MSM6007665801).


  1. Abrahams MV, Dill LM (1989) A determination of the energetic equivalence of the risk of predation. Ecology 4(70):999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (1998) Re-examining in numbers: interaction between risk dilution and collective detection depend upon predator targeting behaviour. Proc Roy Soc Lon B 265:2021–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buitron D (1983) Variability in the responses of Black-billed Magpies to natural predators. Behaviour 87(3–4):209–235. doi: 10.1163/156853983X00435 (27)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caraco T, Blanckenhorn WU, Gregory GM, Newman JA, Recer GM, Zwicker SM (1990) Risk-sensitivity: ambient temperature affects foraging choice. Anim Behav 39(2):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. The University of Chicago Press, London, 591 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrascal LM, Alonso CL (2006) Habitat use under latent predation risk. A case study with wintering forest birds. Oikos 112:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cresswell W (1994) Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in Redshanks, Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 47:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curio E, Klump G, Regelmann K (1983) An anti-predator response in the great tit (Parus major): is it turned to predator risk? Oecologia 60:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desrochers A, Belisle M, Bourque J (2002) Do mobbing calls affect the perception of predation risk by forest birds? Anim Behav 64:709–714. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.4013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devereux CL, Whittingham MJ, Fernández-Juricic E, Vickery JA, Krebs JR (2006) Predator detection and avoidance by starlings under differing scenarios of predation risk. Behav Ecol 17(2):303–309. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arj032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dhondt AA, Eyckerman R (1980) Competition between Great Tit and the Blue Tit outside the breeding season in field experiments. Ecology 61:1291–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviours and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Götmark F (2002) Predation by sparrowhawks favours early breeding and small broods in great tits. Oecologia 130(1):25–32. doi: 10.1007/s004420100769 Google Scholar
  14. Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Moss D (1995) Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus predation and feeding site selection by tits. Ibis 137(3):418–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houston AI, McNamara JM, Hutchinson JMC (1993) General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoid predation. Phil Trans R Soc Lon B 341(1298):375–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones KA, Krebs JR, Whittingham MJ (2009) Heavier birds react faster to predators: individual differences in the detection of stalking and ambush predators. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63(9):1319–1329. doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0778-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleindorfer S, Fessl B, Hoi H (2005) Avian nest defence behaviour: assessment in relation to predator distance and type, and nest height. Anim Behav 69:307–313. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.06 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kübler S, Kupko S, Zeller U (2005) The kestrel (Falco tinnunculus L.) in Berlin: investigation of breeding biology and feeding ecology. J Ornithol 146(3):271–278. doi: 10.1007/s10336-005-0089-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacLeod R, Gosler AG, Cresswell W (2005) Diurnal mass gain strategies and perceived predation risk in the great tit Parus major. J Anim Ecol 74(5):956–964. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00993.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1992) Risk-sensitive foraging-a review of the theory. Bull Math Biol 54:355–378Google Scholar
  21. Milinski M, Parker GA (1991) Competition for resources. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 137–168Google Scholar
  22. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risk and rewards of nest defense by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63(2):167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moody AL, Houston AI, McNamara JM (1996) Ideal free distributions under predation risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38(2):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patterson TL, Petrinovich L, James DK (1980) Reproductive value and appropriateness of response to predators by white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7(3):227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2005) Escape response delays in wintering redshrank, Tringa totanus, flocks: perceptual limits and economic decisions. Anim Behav 69:1285–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  27. Templeton CS, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: Black-Capped Chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308(5730):1934–1937. doi: 10.1126/science.308.5730.1853a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turcotte Y, Desrochers A (2003) Landscape-dependent response to predation risk by forest birds. Oikos 100:614–618. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12234.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rytkönen S, Soppela M (1995) Vicinity of sparrowhawk nest affects willow tit nest defense. Condor 97:1074–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rytkönen S, Kuokkanen P, Hukkanen M et al (1998) Prey selection by Sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus and characteristics of vulnerable prey. Ornis Fen 75(2):77–87Google Scholar
  31. Walther BA, Gosler AB (2001) The effects of food availability and distance to protective cover on the winter foraging behaviour of tits (Aves: Parus). Oecologia 129(2):312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of Biological ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations