Abstract
The risk of predation varies with behavioral cues and body characteristics of potential predators. One such body characteristic is the head/face orientation of the predator. However, a prey individual’s ability to detect the head may be more difficult when the predator’s body is serpentine, with little distinguishing the head from the tail. Here, we tested whether individuals in mixed-species flocks of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) distinguish the head orientation of predator snake models. We conducted behavioral observations at multiple sites each having a bird feeder stocked with seed. Each chickadee and titmouse flock was exposed to two counterbalanced trials: a snake model with head closest to the seed area of the feeder and with tail closest to the seed area of the feeder. Observers recorded the number of seeds taken by each species and also the number of unsuccessful feeder visits. Chickadees and, to a lesser extent, titmice took fewer seeds and had more unsuccessful feeder visits when the head of the snake model was closest to the seed, compared to when the tail was closest to the seed. Titmice, furthermore, had more unsuccessful feeder visits to the black snake model type representing a real snake nest predator for these small songbirds. Therefore, head orientation seems an important factor that some species use to assess predation risk, even for predatory species where head orientation may be a subtle cue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahams MV, Dill LM (1989) A determination of the energetic equivalence of the risk of predation. Ecology 70:999–1007
Bartmess-LeVasseur J, Branch CL, Browning SA, Owens JL, Freeberg TM (2010) Predator stimuli and calling behavior in Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1187–1198
Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (1998) Randomness, chaos and confusion in the study of antipredator vigilance. Trends Ecol Evol 13:284–287
Book DL, Freeberg TM (2015) Titmouse calling and foraging are affected by head and body orientation of cat predator models and possible experience with real cats. Anim Cogn 18:1155–1164
Burbrink FT (2001) Systematics of the eastern ratsnake complex (Elaphe obsoleta). Herpetol Monogr 15:1–53
Burger J, Gochfeld M, Murray BG Jr (1991) Role of a predator’s eye size in risk perception by basking black iguana, Ctenosaura similis. Anim Behav 42:471–476
Burger J, Gochfeld M, Murray BG Jr (1992) Risk discrimination of eye contact and directness of approach in black iguanas (Ctenosaura similis). J Comp Psychol 106:97–101
Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Clucas B, Marzluff J, Makovjak D, Palmquist I (2013) Do American crows pay attention to human gaze and facial expressions? Ethology 119:296–302
Conant R, Collins JT (1998) A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York
Cooper WE Jr (1997) Threat factors affecting antipredatory behavior in the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps): repeated approach, change in predator path, and predator’s field of view. Copeia 1997:613–619
Cooper WE Jr (2003) Risk factors affecting escape behavior by the desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis: speed and directness of predator approach, degree of cover, direction of turning by a predator, and temperature. Can J Zool 81:979–984
Cooper WE Jr, Hawlena D, Pérez-Mellado V (2010) Escape and alerting responses by Balearic lizards (Podarcis lilfordi) to movement and turning direction by nearby predators. J Ethol 28:67–73
Davidson GL, Clayton NS, Thorton A (2014) Salient eyes deter conspecific nest intruders in wild jackdaws (Corvus monedulan. Biol Lett 10:20131077
Devereux CL, Whittingham MJ, Fernandez-Juricic E, Vickery JA, Krebs JR (2006) Predator detection and avoidance by starlings under differing scenarios of predation risk. Behav Ecol 17:303–309
Etting SF, Isbell LA (2014) Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) use posture to assess level of threat from snakes. Ethology 120:1177–1184
Faust TM, Blomquist SM (2011) Size and growth in two populations of black kingsnakes, Lampropeltis nigra, in east Tennessee. Southeast Nat 10:409–422
Freeberg TM, Krama T, Vrublevska J, Krams I, Kullberg C (2014) Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) calling and risk-sensitive foraging in the face of threat. Anim Cogn 17:1341–1352
Gallup GG Jr, Nash RF, Ellison AL Jr (1971) Tonic immobility as a reaction to predation: artificial eyes as a fear stimulus for chickens. Psychon Sci 23:79–80
Griesser M (2008) Referential calls signal predator behavior in a group-living bird species. Curr Biol 18:69–73
Haftorn S (2000) Contexts and possible functions of alarm calling in the willow tit (Parus montanus): the principle of “better safe than sorry”. Behaviour 137:437–449
Helfman GS (1989) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish–trumpetfish interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:47–58
Jones RB (1980) Reactions of male domestic chicks to two-dimensional eye-like shapes. Anim Behav 28:212–218
Karplus I, Algom D (1981) Visual cues for predator face recognition by reef fishes. Z Tierpsychol 55:343–364
Kaufman AB, Rosenthal R (2009) Can you believe my eyes? The importance of interobserver reliability statistics in observations of animal behaviour. Anim Behav 78:1487–1491
Kavaliers M, Choleris E (2001) Antipredator responses and defensive behavior: ecological and ethological approaches for the neurosciences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 25:577–586
Kleindorfer S, Fessl B, Hoi H (2005) Avian nest defense behaviour: assessment in relation to predator distance and type, and nest height. Anim Behav 69:307–313
Kroodsma DE (1989) Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Anim Behav 37:600–609
Leopold DA, Rhodes G (1983) A comparative view of face perception. J Comp Psychol 124:233–251
Lima SL (1998) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav 27:215–290
Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640
Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risks and rewards of nest defense by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187
Mostrom AM, Curry RL, Lohr B (2002) Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis). In: Poole E (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/636
Niemiller ML, Reynolds GR, Miller BT (eds) (2013) The reptiles of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville
Nolen MT, Lucas JR (2009) Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice. Anim Behav 77:1137–1146
Ritchison G, Grubb TC Jr, Pravasudov VV (2015) Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). In: Poole E (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/086
Scott AF, Redmond WH (2008) Atlas of reptiles in Tennessee. The Center of Excellence for Field Biology. Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, http://apsu.edu/reptatlas/
Sieving KE, Hetrick SA, Avery ML (2010) The versatility of graded acoustic measures in classification of predation threats by the tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor: exploring a mixed framework for threat communication. Oikos 119:264–276
Stankowich T, Blumstein DT (2005) Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:2627–2634
Suzuki TN (2012) Referential mobbing calls elicit different predator searching behaviors in Japanese great tits. Anim Behav 84:53–57
Tvardíková K, Fuchs R (2012) Tits recognize the potential dangers of predators and harmless birds in feeder experiments. J Ethol 30:157–165
Weatherhead PJ, Blouin-Demers G (2004) Understanding avian nest predation: why ornithologists should study snakes. J Avian Biol 35:185–190
Acknowledgments
We thank the staffs of Ijams Nature Center, Norris Dam State Park, and the University of Tennessee Forest Resources, Research, and Education Center for allowing us to carry out these studies at their sites. We are grateful to David Book, Sheri Browning, Gordon Burghardt, Sandy Echternacht, Elizabeth Hobson, Hwayoung Jung, Steven Kyle, the students of the Comparative Animal Behavior Laboratory, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical standards
This study was conducted under approved University of Tennessee IACUC protocol no. 1248.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by P. A. Bednekoff
Significance statement
Prey species should pay attention not only to the presence of a predator in the environment, but also to the predator’s behavior. One predator behavioral cue to which prey individuals pay attention is the predator’s head and body orientation. However, this behavioral cue may be difficult to assess if the predator is a snake. Here, we demonstrate experimentally that Carolina chickadees and, to a lesser extent, tufted titmice, forage less from a feeder if the head of a snake model is closer to the feeder than if the tail of a snake model is closer to the feeder. Along with other studies, this work suggests that small songbirds are highly sensitive to the head orientation of potential predators, even in serpentine species where the head location may be difficult to perceive.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cantwell, L.R., Johnson, W.T., Kaschel, R.E. et al. Predator-risk-sensitive foraging behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) in response to the head orientation of snake predator models. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70, 533–539 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2070-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2070-x