Journal of Ethology

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 293–296 | Cite as

Tail flicking in the black redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros) and distance to cover

  • Nadine KalbEmail author
  • Christoph Randler


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 



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.

Ethical note

This study complies with all the relevant laws of Germany.


  1. Alvarez F (1993) Alertness signalling in two rail species. Anim Behav 46(6):1229–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez F et al (2006) Relationships between tail-flicking, morphology, and body condition in moorhens. J Field Ornithol 77(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Beauchamp G (2010) Relationship between distance to cover, vigilance and group size in staging flocks of semipalmated sandpipers. Ethology 116(7):645–652Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp G (2015) Visual obstruction and vigilance: a natural experiment. J Avian Biol 46(5):476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broom M, Ruxton GD (2012) Perceptual advertisement by the prey of stalking or ambushing predators. J Theor Biol 315:9–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carder ML, Ritchison G (2009) Tail pumping by eastern phoebes: an honest, persistent predator-deterrent signal? J Field Ornithol 80(2):163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig JL (1982) On the evidence for a “pursuit deterrent” function of alarm signals of swamphens. Am Nat 119(5):753–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Elgar MA et al (1984) Vigilance and perception of flock size in foraging house sparrows (Passer domesticus L.). Behaviour 90(4):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick S (1998) Birds’ tails as signaling devices: markings, shape, length, and feather quality. Am Nat 151(2):157–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Götmark F, Unger U (1994) Are conspicuous birds unprofitable prey? Field experiments with hawks and stuffed prey species. Auk 111:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Lazarus J, Symonds M (1992) Contrasting effects of protective and obstructive cover on avian vigilance. Anim Behav 43(3):519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lima SL (1987) Distance to cover, visual obstructions, and vigilance in house sparrows. Behaviour 102(3):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lima SL (1990) Protective cover and the use of space: different strategies in finches. Oikos 58(2):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lima SL (1993) Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North American birds. Wilson Bull 105:1–47Google Scholar
  19. Lima SL et al (1987) Protective cover and the use of space by finches: is closer better? Oikos 50(2):225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murphy TG (2006) Predator-elicited visual signal: why the turquoise-browed motmot wag-displays its racketed tail. Behav Ecol 17(4):547–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pöysä H (1994) Group foraging, distance to cover and vigilance in the teal, Anas crecca. Anim Behav 48(4):921–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pulliam HR, Mills GS (1977) The use of space by wintering sparrows. Ecology 58(6):1393–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Randler C (2006) Is tail wagging in white wagtails, Motacilla alba, an honest signal of vigilance? Anim Behav 71(5):1089–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Randler C (2007) Observational and experimental evidence for the function of tail flicking in Eurasian moorhen Gallinula chloropus. Ethology 113(7):629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Randler C (2016) Tail movements in birds—current evidence and new concepts. Ornithol Sci 15(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ryan DA et al (1996) Scanning and tail-flicking in the Australian dusky moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa). Auk 113:499–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL Accessed 17 Oct 2016
  28. Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65(6):1820–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Uttendörfer O (1952) Neue Ergebnisse über die Ernährung der Greifvögel und Eulen. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Woodland D et al (1980) The “pursuit deterrent” function of alarm signals. Am Nat 115(5):748–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Didactics of BiologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations