Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 54, Issue 6, pp 534–538 | Cite as

What limits predator detection in blue tits (Parus caeruleus): posture, task or orientation?

  • Ulrika KabyEmail author
  • Johan Lind
Original Article

Abstract

To detect threats and reduce predation risk prey animals need to be alert. Early predator detection and rapid anti-predatory action increase the likelihood of survival. We investigated how foraging affects predator detection and time to take-off in blue tits (Parus caeruleus) by subjecting them to a simulated raptor attack. To investigate the impact of body posture we compared birds feeding head-down with birds feeding head-up, but could not find any effect of posture on either time to detection or time to take-off. To investigate the impact of orientation we compared birds having their side towards the attacking predator with birds having their back towards it. Predator detection, but not time to take-off, was delayed when the back was oriented towards the predator. We also investigated the impact of foraging task by comparing birds that were either not foraging, foraging on chopped mealworms, or foraging on whole ones. Foraging on chopped mealworms did not delay detection compared to nonforaging showing that foraging does not always restrict vigilance. However, detection was delayed more than 150% when the birds were foraging on whole, live mealworms, which apparently demanded much attention and handling skill. Time to take-off was affected by foraging task in the same way as detection was. We show that when studying foraging and vigilance one must include the difficulty of the foraging task and prey orientation.

Keywords

Blue tits Detection ability Foraging Predation risk Vigilance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Patrik Lindenfors for statistical advice and Christer Wiklund, two anonymous referees, Peter Bednekoff and Sven Jakobsson for valuable comments improving the manuscript. We also thank the Schöns, the Berglunds and the Bergmans for letting us trap birds in their gardens. This study was supported by grants from Elis Wide's (Gustaf Danielsson's) Foundation (Swedish Ornithological Society) to U.K. and conducted with permission No. 66–98 from the Swedish ethical board for conducting behavioural research.

References

  1. Blumstein DT (1998) Quantifying predation risk for refuging animals: a case study with golden marmots. Ethology 104:501--516Google Scholar
  2. Brick O (1998) Fighting behaviour, vigilance and predation risk in the cichlid fish Nannacara anomala. Anim Behav 56:309--317Google Scholar
  3. Cords M (1995) Predator vigilance costs of allogrooming in wild blue monkeys. Behaviour 132:559--569Google Scholar
  4. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1994) The birds of the western Palearctic, vol 9, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Cresswell W (1993) Escape responses by redshanks, Tringa totanus, on attack by avian predators. Anim Behav 46:609--611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cresswell W (1996) Surprise as a winter hunting strategy in sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus, peregrines Falco peregrinus and merlins F. columbarius. Ibis 138:684--692Google Scholar
  7. Desimone R (1998) Visual attention mediated by biased competition in extrastriate visual cortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 353:1245--1255Google Scholar
  8. Dukas R, Kamil AC (2000) The cost of limited attention in blue jays. Behav Ecol 11:502--506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dukas R, Kamil AC (2001) Limited attention: the constraint underlying search image. Behav Ecol 12:192--199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzgibbon CD (1989) A cost to individuals with reduced vigilance in groups of Thomson's gazelles hunted by cheetahs. Anim Behav 37:508--510Google Scholar
  11. Fitzgibbon CD (1990) Why do hunting cheetahs prefer male gazelles? Anim Behav 40:837--845Google Scholar
  12. Godin JG J, Smith SA (1988) A fitness cost of foraging in the guppy. Nature 333:69--71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goslow Jr. GE (1971) The attack and strike of some North American raptors. Auk 88:815--827Google Scholar
  14. Harcourt R (1991) Survivorship costs of play in the south-american fur-seal. Anim Behav 42:509--511.Google Scholar
  15. Hilton GM, Cresswell W, Ruxton GD (1999) Intraflock variation in the speed of escape-flight response on attack by an avian predator. Behav Ecol 10:391--395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakobsson S, Brick O, Kullberg C (1995) Escalated fighting behaviour incurs increased predation risk. Anim Behav 49:235--239Google Scholar
  17. Kenward RE (1978) Hawks and doves: factors affecting success and selection in goshawk attacks on woodpigeons. J Anim Ecol 47:449--460Google Scholar
  18. Krause J, Godin JGJ (1995) Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465--473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krause J, Godin JGJ (1996) Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey. Behav Ecol 7:264--271Google Scholar
  20. Lawrence SE (1985) Vigilance during easy and difficult foraging tasks. Anim Behav 33:1373--75Google Scholar
  21. Lendrem DW (1983) Predation risk and vigilance in the blue tit (Parus careuleus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:9--13Google Scholar
  22. Lima SL (1994) On the personal benefits of antipredatory vigilance. Anim Behav 48:734--736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Back to the basics of antipredatory vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Anim Behav 58:537--543Google Scholar
  24. Lingle S, Wilson WF (2001) Detection and avoidance of predators in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus). Ethology 107:125--147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maestripieri D (1993) Vigilance costs of allogrooming in macaque mothers. Am Nat 141:744--753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metcalfe NB (1984) The effects of habitat on the vigilance of shorebirds: is visibility important? Anim Behav 32:981--985Google Scholar
  27. Milinski M (1984) A predator's costs of overcoming the confusion-effect of swarming prey. Anim Behav 32:1157--1162Google Scholar
  28. Popp JW (1988) Effects of food-handling time on scanning rates among American goldfinches. Auk 105:384--385Google Scholar
  29. Rudebeck G (1950) The choice of prey and modes of hunting of predatory birds with special reference to their selective effect. Oikos 2:65--88Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm University StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations