Tail flicking is a common behavior in many bird species, but its function is often unknown. Apart from intraspecific communication, tail flicking could be used during predator–prey communication, e.g., as a signal of prey vigilance or quality. We studied this behavior in the black redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros), a species that frequently shows tail flicking and is prone to attacks by ambushing predators that hide in cover. Hence, cover might be perceived as dangerous by this species. We hypothesized that flicking should increase with decreasing distance to cover. We counted the number of tail flicks of individuals and measured their distance to the nearest cover for an ambushing predator. We found that distance to cover had a significant effect on tail flicking behavior, as flicking increased with decreasing distance, but found no difference in flicking frequency between adults and juveniles or between sexes. Consequently, tail flicking is unlikely to signal submission or to be sexually selected in the black redstart. Since tail flicking also occurred in the absence of predators, we consider tail flicking in black redstarts to display vigilance and to be directed towards ambushing predators.
Vigilance Ambush predator Signaling Predator–prey communication
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We are grateful for the comments of two anonymous reviewers that helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study complies with all the relevant laws of Germany.
Alvarez F et al (2006) Relationships between tail-flicking, morphology, and body condition in moorhens. J Field Ornithol 77(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard C (1980) Factors affecting flock size mean and variance in a winter population of house sparrows (Passer domesticus L.). Behaviour 74(1):114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchamp G (2010) Relationship between distance to cover, vigilance and group size in staging flocks of semipalmated sandpipers. Ethology 116(7):645–652Google Scholar
Beauchamp G (2015) Visual obstruction and vigilance: a natural experiment. J Avian Biol 46(5):476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom M, Ruxton GD (2012) Perceptual advertisement by the prey of stalking or ambushing predators. J Theor Biol 315:9–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Carder ML, Ritchison G (2009) Tail pumping by eastern phoebes: an honest, persistent predator-deterrent signal? J Field Ornithol 80(2):163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig JL (1982) On the evidence for a “pursuit deterrent” function of alarm signals of swamphens. Am Nat 119(5):753–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz JA, Asensio B (1991) Effects of group size and distance to protective cover on the vigilance behaviour of black-billed magpies Pica pica. Bird Study 38(1):38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgar MA et al (1984) Vigilance and perception of flock size in foraging house sparrows (Passer domesticus L.). Behaviour 90(4):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick S (1998) Birds’ tails as signaling devices: markings, shape, length, and feather quality. Am Nat 151(2):157–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Götmark F, Unger U (1994) Are conspicuous birds unprofitable prey? Field experiments with hawks and stuffed prey species. Auk 111:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin AS et al (2005) Mixed-species aggregations in birds: zenaida doves, Zenaida aurita, respond to the alarm calls of carib grackles, Quiscalus lugubris. Anim Behav 70(3):507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones KA, Whittingham MJ (2008) Anti-predator signals in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs in response to habitat structure and different predator types. Ethology 114(11):1033–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus J, Symonds M (1992) Contrasting effects of protective and obstructive cover on avian vigilance. Anim Behav 43(3):519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima SL (1987) Distance to cover, visual obstructions, and vigilance in house sparrows. Behaviour 102(3):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima SL (1990) Protective cover and the use of space: different strategies in finches. Oikos 58(2):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima SL (1993) Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North American birds. Wilson Bull 105:1–47Google Scholar
Lima SL et al (1987) Protective cover and the use of space by finches: is closer better? Oikos 50(2):225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy TG (2006) Predator-elicited visual signal: why the turquoise-browed motmot wag-displays its racketed tail. Behav Ecol 17(4):547–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöysä H (1994) Group foraging, distance to cover and vigilance in the teal, Anas crecca. Anim Behav 48(4):921–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam HR, Mills GS (1977) The use of space by wintering sparrows. Ecology 58(6):1393–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randler C (2006) Is tail wagging in white wagtails, Motacilla alba, an honest signal of vigilance? Anim Behav 71(5):1089–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randler C (2007) Observational and experimental evidence for the function of tail flicking in Eurasian moorhen Gallinula chloropus. Ethology 113(7):629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randler C (2016) Tail movements in birds—current evidence and new concepts. Ornithol Sci 15(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan DA et al (1996) Scanning and tail-flicking in the Australian dusky moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa). Auk 113:499–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2016
Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65(6):1820–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uttendörfer O (1952) Neue Ergebnisse über die Ernährung der Greifvögel und Eulen. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
Weggler M, Leu B (2001) Eine überschuss produzierende population des Hausrotschwanzes (Phoenicurus ochruros) in Ortschaften mit hoher hauskatzendichte (Felis catus). J Ornithol 142(3):273–283Google Scholar
Woodland D et al (1980) The “pursuit deterrent” function of alarm signals. Am Nat 115(5):748–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar