Role of chemical and visual cues of mammalian predators in nest defense in birds
- 357 Downloads
We explore for the first time the relative importance of chemical and visual cues of predators in nest defense and antipredator behavior in a hole-nesting songbird, the blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus. Birds breeding in nest boxes were exposed to chemical or visual cues of a predatory and a non-predatory mammal during the nestling stage, and their behavior both outside and inside nest boxes was recorded with video films. Our results show that birds respond equally to chemical and to visual cues of predators in a context of nest defense. Adult birds minimized predation risk by decreasing the time spent inside the nest box while feeding nestlings when they were exposed to either visual or chemical cues of a mammalian predator. They decreased the time spent in non-essential activities for nestlings’ survival, such as nest sanitation activities, but they maintained provisioning rates so that the nestlings’ growth was not compromised. In this way, birds minimized the risk of predation while provisioning nestlings when a predator was detected in the vicinity of their nest.
We explored the role of predator chemical and visual cues for risk assessment in blue tits. Our results showed for the first time that birds respond equally to chemical and to visual cues of mammalian predators. Birds decreased time exposed to predation risk when entering the nest box to feed the nestlings. They reduced time spent in non-essential activities for nestling survival, such as nest sanitation. However, they maintained provisioning rates so that nestling growth was not impaired.
KeywordsAvian olfaction Predation risk assessment Chemical cues Visual cues Provisioning behavior Nest defense Predator cues
We especially thank Paz Manzano for English corrections. We thank anonymous referees that help us to improve the manuscript with their comments.
Compliance with ethical standards
LA was supported by the Ramón y Cajal program and the CGL2014-58890-P project. GT was partly supported by the Ramón y Cajal program.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
No nest was deserted during the course of the experiment. Results of a previous study showed that exposure to predator chemical cues did not affect body condition of blue tit nestlings, even when cues were located inside nest boxes (Amo et al. 2008). The experiment was conducted under license issued by the Instituto Aragonés de Gestión Ambiental (INAGA/500201/24/2013/11743).
- Amo L, López P, Martín J (2005) Chemical assessment of predation risk in the wall lizard, Podarcis muralis, is influenced by time exposed to chemical cues of ambush snakes. Herpetol J 15:21–25Google Scholar
- Cramp S, Perrins CM (1993) Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. VII. Flycatchers to shrikes. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- García-Navas V, Sanz JJ (2010) Flexibility in the foraging behavior of blue tits in response to short-term manipulations of brood size. Ethology 116:744–754Google Scholar
- Knight RL, Temple SA (1986) Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the nesting cycle? Auk 103:318–327Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2012) R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.r-project.org