Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 43–51 | Cite as

Responses of urban crows to con- and hetero-specific alarm calls in predator and non-predator zoo enclosures

  • Kateřina Bílá
  • Jana Beránková
  • Petr Veselý
  • Thomas Bugnyar
  • Christine Schwab
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Animal cognition in a human-dominated world


Urban animals and birds in particular are able to cope with diverse novel threats in a city environment such as avoiding novel, unfamiliar predators. Predator avoidance often includes alarm signals that can be used also by hetero-specifics, which is mainly the case in mixed-species flocks. It can also occur when species do not form flocks but co-occur together. In this study we tested whether urban crows use alarm calls of conspecifics and hetero-specifics (jackdaws, Corvus monedula) differently in a predator and a non-predator context with partly novel and unfamiliar zoo animal species. Birds were tested at the Tiergarten Schönbrunn in the city of Vienna by playing back con- and hetero-specific alarm calls and control stimuli (great tit song and no stimuli) at predator (wolf, polar bear) and non-predator (eland antelope and cranes, peccaries) enclosures. We recorded responses of crows as the percentage of birds flying away after hearing the playback (out of those present before the playback) and as the number of vocalizations given by the present birds. A significantly higher percentage of crows flew away after hearing either con- or hetero-specific alarm calls, but it did not significantly differ between the predator and the non-predator context. Crows treated jackdaw calls just as crow calls, indicating that they make proper use of hetero-specific alarm calls. Responding similarly in both contexts may suggest that the crows were uncertain about the threat a particular zoo animal represents and were generally cautious. In the predator context, however, a high percentage of crows also flew away upon hearing the great tit control song which suggests that they may still evaluate those species which occasionally killed crows as more dangerous and respond to any conspicuous sound.


Alarm call Carrion crow Conspecific signal Hetero-specific signal Communication Predator avoidance Inter-specific signalling 



We are very thankful to all anonymous reviewers for helpful comments to the manuscript. We thank the Tiergarten Schönbrunn for supporting this study, Georgine Szipl for providing the playback stimuli, Florian Uhl for providing demographic information on the study population and Alexandra Průchová for help with data collection. This project was supported by Aktion Czech Republic—Austria (Project No. 70-p9) and University of South Bohemia (Project No. 159/2013/P). CS was supported by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through project CS11-008. TB was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Project Y366-B17.


  1. Azevedo CS, Young RJ (2006) Behavioural responses of captive-born greater rheas Rhea Americana Linnaeus (Rheiformes, Rheidae) submitted to antipredator training? Rev Bras Zool 23:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp G (2015) Animal vigilance: monitoring predators and competitors. Academic Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Binazzi R, Zaccaroni M, Nespoli A et al (2010) Anti-predator behaviour of the red-legged partridge Alectoris rufa (Galliformes: Phasianidae) to simulated terrestrial and aerial predators. Ital J Zool 78:106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonnington C, Gaston KJ, Evans KL (2015) Ecological traps and behavioural adjustments of urban songbirds to fine-scale spatial variation in predator activity. Anim Conserv 18:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossema I, Röell A, Baeyens G, Zeevalking H, Leever H (1976) Interspecifieke agressie en sociale organisatie bij onze inheemse Corviden. De Levende Nat 79:149–166Google Scholar
  6. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Cocker M, Mabey R (2005) Birds Britannica. Random House, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornell HN, Marzluff JM, Pecoraro S (2012) Social learning spreads knowledge about dangerous humans among American crows. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 279:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cully JF, Ligon JD (1976) Comparative mobbing behavior of Scrub and Mexican Jays. Auk 93:116–125Google Scholar
  10. Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev 64:13–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans CS, Evans L (2007) Representational signalling in birds. Biol Lett 3:8–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans BS, Ryder TB, Reitsma R, Hurlbert AH, Marra PP (2015) Characterizing avian survival along a rural-to-urban land use gradient. Ecology 96:1631–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferenc M, Sedláček O, Fuchs R (2014) How to improve urban greenspace for woodland birds: site and local-scale determinants of bird species richness. Urban Ecosyst 17:625–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari MCO, Gonzalo A, Messier F, Chivers DP (2007) Generalization of learned predator recognition: an experimental test and framework for future studies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:1853–1859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flower T (2011) Fork-tailed drongos use deceptive mimicked alarm calls to steal food. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:1548–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M (2001) Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Anim Behav 62:1067–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galbraith JA, Beggs JR, Jones DN, Stanley MC (2015) Supplementary feeding restructures urban bird communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:E2648–E2657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaston K (2010) Urban ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gering JC, Blair RB (1999) Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography 22:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gill SA, Bierema AM-K (2013) On the meaning of alarm calls: a review of functional reference in avian alarm calling. Ethology 119:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodale E, Kotagama SW (2008) Response to conspecific and heterospecific alarm calls in mixed-species bird flocks of a Sri Lankan rainforest. Behav Ecol 19:887–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodale E, Beauchamp G, Magrath RD, Nieh JC, Ruxton GD (2010) Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 25:354–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Göth A (2001) Innate predator-recognition in Australian brush-turkey (Alectura lathami, Megapodiidae) hatchlings. Behaviour 138:117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffin AS, Evans CS, Blumstein DT (2001) Learning specificity in acquired predator recognition. Anim Behav 62:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffin AS, Savani R, Hausmanis K, Lefebvre L (2005) Mixed-species aggregations in birds: zenaida doves, Zenaida aurita, respond to the alarm calls of carib grackles, Quiscalus lugubris. Anim Behav 70:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauser MD (1988) How infant vervet monkeys learn to recognize starling alarm calls: the role of experience. Behaviour 105:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houston CS (1977) Changing patterns of Corvidae on the prairies. Blue Jay 35:149–155Google Scholar
  28. Hurd CR (1996) Interspecific attraction to the mobbing calls of black capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen KK, Larsen ON, Attenborough K (2008) Measurements and predictions of hooded crow (Corvus corone cornix) call propagation over open field habitats. J Acoust Soc Am 123:507–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jerzak L (2001) Synurbanization of the magpie in the Palearctic. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Springer, New York, pp 403–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson FR, McNaughton EJ, Shelley C, Blumstein DT (2003) Mechanisms of heterospecific recognition in avian mobbing calls. Aust J Zool 51:577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jokimäki J, Huhta E (2000) Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. Condor 102:838–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jokimäki J, Suhonen J (1993) Effects of urbanization on the breeding bird species richness in Finland: a biogeographical comparison. Ornis Fenn 70:71–77Google Scholar
  34. Kauhala K, Talvitie K, Vuorisalo T (2015) Free-ranging house cats in urban and rural areas in the north: useful rodent killers or harmful bird predators? Folia Zool 64:45–55Google Scholar
  35. Knight RL (1984) Responses of nesting ravens to people in areas of different human densities. Condor 86:345–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight RL, Grout DJ, Temple SA (1987) Nest-defense behavior of the American crow in urban and rural areas. Condor 89:175–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Köver L, Gyure P, Balogh P, Huettmann F, Lengyel S, Juhasz L (2015) Recent colonization and nest site selection of the Hooded Crow (Corvus corone cornix L.) in an urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 133:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lockie JD (1955) The breeding and feeding of Jackdaws and Rooks with notes on Carrion Crows and other Corvidae. Ibis 97:341–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lopez-Flores V, MacGregor-Fors I, Schondube JE (2009) Artificial nest predation along a neotropical urban gradient. Landsc Urban Plan 92:90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magrath RD, Haff TM, Fallow PM, Radford AN (2015) Eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: from mechanisms to consequences: interspecific eavesdropping. Biol Rev 90:560–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Marler P (1955) Characteristic of some animal calls. Nature 176:6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marzluff JM, Walls J, Cornell HN, Withey JC, Craig DP (2010) Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows. Anim Behav 79:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGowan KJ (2001) Demographic and behavioral comparisons of suburban and rural American Crows. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Springer, New York, pp 365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Milius S (2011) When birds go to town: urban settings offer enterprising critters new opportunities—if they can cope with the challenges. Sci News 180:26–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Møller AP (1988) False alarm calls as a means of resource usurpation in the great tit Parus major. Ethology 79:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Møller AP, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2012) Escape behaviour of birds provides evidence of predation being involved in urbanization. Anim Behav 84(2):341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Munn CA (1984) The behavioral ecology of mixed-species bird flocks in Amazonian Peru. Dissertation, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  49. Pellissier V, Cohenb M, Boulayb A, Clergeau P (2012) Birds are also sensitive to landscape composition and configuration within the city centre. Landsc Urban Plan 104:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rainey HJ, Zuberbühler K, Slater PJB (2004) Hornbills can distinguish between primate alarm calls. Proc R Soc Biol Sci 271:755–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Randler C (2006) Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) respond to alarm calls of Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius). Ethology 112:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Randler C (2008) Risk assessment by crow phenotypes in a hybrid zone. J Ethol 26:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Röell A, Bossema I (1982) A comparison of nest defence by jackdaws, rooks, magpies and crows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rolando A, Giachello P (1992) Interspecific coexistence in corvids in an Alpine valley of Northwestern Italy. Ital J Zool 59:281–288Google Scholar
  55. Ross SR, Holmes AN, Lonsdorf EV (2009) Interactions between zoo-housed great apes and local wildlife. Am J Primatol 71:458–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  57. Schetini de Azevedo C, Young RJ, Rodrigues M (2012) Failure of captive-born greater rheas (Rhea americana, Rheidae, Aves) to discriminate between predator and nonpredator models. Acta Ethol 15:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schulze A (2003) Die Vogelstimmen Europas, Nordafrikas und Vorderasiens. Musikverlag Edition AMPLE, Germering, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  59. Shriner WM (1998) Yellow-bellied marmot and golden-mantled ground squirrel responses to heterospecific alarm calls. Anim Behav 55:529–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Stearns M, White BC, Schneider E, Bean E (1988) Bird predation by captive woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha). Primates 29:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sullivan K (1984) Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour 91:294–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tryjanowski P, Morelli F, Skorka P, Golawski A, Indykiewicz P, Møller AP, Mitrus C, Wysocki D, Zduniak P (2015) Who started first? Bird species visiting novel birdfeeders. Sci Rep 5:11858CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Warrington MH, McDonald PG, Griffith SC (2015) Within-group vocal differentiation of individuals in the cooperatively breeding apostlebird. Behav Ecol 26:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wascher CAF, Hillemann F, Canestrari D, Baglione V (2015) Carrion crows learn to discriminate between calls of reliable and unreliable conspecifics. Anim Cogn 18:1181–1185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Young A, Stillman R, Smith MJ, Korstjens AH (2014) An experimental study of vertebrate scavenging behavior in a Northwest European woodland context. J Forensic Sci 59:1333–1342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Zaccaroni M, Ciuffreda M, Paganin M, Beani L (2007) Does an early aversive experience to humans modify antipredator behaviour in adult Rock partridges. Ethol Ecol Evol 19:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zuberbühler K (2000) Interspecies semantic communication in two forest primates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:713–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kateřina Bílá
    • 1
  • Jana Beránková
    • 1
  • Petr Veselý
    • 1
  • Thomas Bugnyar
    • 2
  • Christine Schwab
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine ViennaMedical University of Vienna and University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations