Skip to main content

Playing it by ear: gregarious sparrows recognize and respond to isolated wingbeat sounds and predator-based cues

Abstract

The ability to detect an incoming attack provides a final opportunity for an animal to avoid predation. In birds, vision is the main sensory mode in detecting attacks, but auditory cues likely play an important role. The role of auditory cues from predators themselves remains largely unstudied. We evaluated the ability of free-living, gregarious sparrows (Passerellidae) to recognize attacks based on the non-vocal sounds made by predators or indirect auditory cues of ongoing attacks, mainly in the form of brief wingbeat sequences from predatory and non-predatory birds. Behavioral responses to playbacks were video-recorded and expressed in terms of a flock’s propensity to respond, either by flushing to cover, becoming vigilant, or both. Sparrows responded equally to hawk wingbeats and those of small passerines. Both predator and non-predator wingbeat sequences induced anti-predator responses, especially when played loudly. Loud control sounds, such as hammering, induced few responses. Birds also responded to the sounds of a walking and running terrestrial predator (a dog), but reactions to the walking predator often involved birds jumping onto objects for a better view of their surroundings rather than immediate flight to cover. In an additional experiment, we examined how characteristics of wingbeat sequences (i.e., the number and cadence of hawk wingbeats) affected passerine responses. It indicated that only two consecutive hawk wingbeats, presented at a natural cadence, are necessary to elicit a strong response to a playback. Single hawk wingbeats induced only weak escape responses, as did artificially slowed cadences. Birds in general likely possess the ability to recognize non-vocal, auditory cues of incoming attacks, which may be produced by approaching threats or departing congeners.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Illinois Data Bank (https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-6676149_V1).

References

  • Apfelbach R, Blanchard CD, Blanchard RJ et al (2005) The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:1123–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp G (2015) Animal vigilance: monitoring predators and competitors. Academic Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boujja-Miljour H, Leighton PA, Beauchamp G (2017) Spread of false alarms in foraging flocks of house sparrows. Ethology 123:526–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ et al (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J 9:378. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler NE, Magrath RD, Peters RA (2017) Lack of alarm calls in a gregarious bird: models and videos of predators prompt alarm responses but no alarm calls by zebra finches. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr JM, Lima SL (2012) Heat-conserving postures hinder escape: a thermoregulation–predation trade-off in wintering birds. Behav Ecol 23:434–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl JA, Ritchison G (2018) Responses of Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata) to raptors that differ in predatory threat. Avian Biol Res 11:159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelaar P, Wright J (2006) Potential prey make excellent ornithologists: adaptive, flexible responses towards avian predation threat by Arabian Babblers Turdoides squamiceps living at a migratory hotspot. Ibis 148:664–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallow PM, Gardner JL, Magrath RD (2011) Sound familiar? Acoustic similarity provokes responses to unfamiliar heterospecific alarm calls. Behav Ecol 22:401–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forstmeier W, Schielzeth H (2011) Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1038-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeberg TM, Lucas JR (2002) Receivers respond differently to chick-a-dee calls varying in note composition in Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis. Anim Behav 63:837–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows I, Singh P (2019) irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. Version R package version 0.84.1URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr. Accessed 16 Jan 2022

  • Griesser M (2008) Referential calls signal predator behavior in a group-living bird species. Curr Biol 18:69–73

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haff TM, Magrath RD (2010) Vulnerable but not helpless: nestlings are fine-tuned to cues of approaching danger. Anim Behav 79:487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartig F (2021) DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. Version R package version 0.4.3URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa. Accessed 16 Jan 2022

  • Herberholz J, Sen MM, Edwards DH (2004) Escape behavior and escape circuit activation in juvenile crayfish during prey–predator interactions. J Exp Biol 207:1855–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hingee M, Magrath RD (2009) Flights of fear: a mechanical wing whistle sounds the alarm in a flocking bird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:4173–4179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes AR, Mann DA, Kimbro DL (2014) Predatory fish sounds can alter crab foraging behaviour and influence bivalve abundance. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20140715. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen SC, Cole EF, Sheehan MJ, Sheldon BC (2020) Social learning of acoustic anti-predator cues occurs between wild bird species. Proc R Soc B 287:20192513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lee ZA, Baranowski AK, Preisser EL (2021) Auditory predator cues affect monarch (Danaus plexippus; Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) development time and pupal weight. Acta Oecologica 111:103740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2021.103740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenth RV, Buerkner P, Herve M et al (2022) emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. Version R package version 1.7.5URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans. Accessed 16 Jan 2022

  • Lima SL (1994) Collective detection of predatory attack by birds in the absence of alarm signals. J Avian Biol 25(4):319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1995) Collective detection of predatory attack by social foragers: fraught with ambiguity? Anim Behav 50:1097–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Anti-predatory vigilance and the limits to collective detection: visual and spatial separation between foragers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López P, Martı́n J (2001) Chemosensory predator recognition induces specific defensive behaviours in a fossorial amphisbaenian. Anim Behav 62:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch E, Northrup JM, McKenna MF et al (2015) Landscape and anthropogenic features influence the use of auditory vigilance by mule deer. Behav Ecol 26:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean SA, Bonter DN (2013) The sound of danger: threat sensitivity to predator vocalizations, alarm calls, and novelty in gulls. PLoS One 8:e82384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magrath RD, Pitcher BJ, Dalziell AH (2007) How to be fed but not eaten: nestling responses to parental food calls and the sound of a predator’s footsteps. Anim Behav 74:1117–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magrath RD, Haff TM, McLachlan JR, Igic B (2015) Wild birds learn to eavesdrop on heterospecific alarm calls. Curr Biol 25:2047–2050

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen TL (2020) Patchwork: the composer of plots. Version R package version 1.1.1URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork. Accessed 16 Jan 2022

  • Quinn JL, Whittingham MJ, Butler SJ, Cresswell W (2006) Noise, predation risk compensation and vigilance in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. J Avian Biol 37:601–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 4.1.1. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 16 Jan 2022

  • Rainey HJ, Zuberbühler K, Slater PJ (2004) Hornbills can distinguish between primate alarm calls. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:755–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth TC, Vetter WE (2008) The effect of feeder hotspots on the predictability and home range use of a small bird in winter. Ethology 114:398–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RStudio Team (2021) RStudio: integrated development environment for R. Version 1.4.1717. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. URL http://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 16 Jan 2022

  • Suzuki TN (2014) Communication about predator type by a bird using discrete, graded and combinatorial variation in alarm calls. Anim Behav 87:59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle LJ, Robinson HE, Takagi D et al (2019) Going with the flow: hydrodynamic cues trigger directed escapes from a stalking predator. J R Soc Interface 16:20180776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tvardíková K, Fuchs R (2012) Tits recognize the potential dangers of predators and harmless birds in feeder experiments. J Ethol 30:157–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2016) ggplot2. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wignall AE, Jackson RR, Wilcox RS, Taylor PW (2011) Exploitation of environmental noise by an araneophagic assassin bug. Anim Behav 82:1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windmill JFC, Jackson JC, Tuck EJ, Robert D (2006) Keeping up with bats: dynamic auditory tuning in a moth. Curr Biol 16:2418–2423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.09.066

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Indiana State University College of Graduate and Professional Studies and the Department of Biology. Steven L. Lima played a crucial role in the conceptualization, methodology, and administration of this research. We thank P. Scott, D. Hews, and S. Lima for permission to use their property for a study site. We thank D. Garvin and D. Bensinger for access to their trained falconry hawks and T. Divoll for the use of his cooperative dog. K. Murphy and J. Lucas provided valuable advice and assistance with sound recording equipment and analyses. J. Smith produced our Figure 1 experimental design schematic. J. O’Keefe, W. Mitchell, S. Lima, and three anonymous reviewers provided useful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Funding

Indiana State University College of Graduate and Professional Studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DJS: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. EAB: formal analysis, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Shearer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shearer, D.J., Beilke, E.A. Playing it by ear: gregarious sparrows recognize and respond to isolated wingbeat sounds and predator-based cues. Anim Cogn (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01663-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01663-z

Keywords

  • Vigilance
  • Playbacks
  • Auditory detection
  • Predator detection
  • Predator–prey interaction
  • Antipredator behavior