Skip to main content
Log in

Heavier birds react faster to predators: individual differences in the detection of stalking and ambush predators

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between body mass and reactions speed in response to a predatory threat is poorly understood. Theory predicts that different vigilance patterns are optimal for the detection of different predator types. We suggest that birds of different individual state might also differ in their speed of response dependent upon predator type. We used laboratory trials of wild caught chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs) to determine how between individual differences in chaffinch behaviour and state correlate with latency to react to a ground predator model (domestic cat), thus providing a comparison with previous work in the same model system using aerial predator models. In experiment 1, we observed chaffinch responses to a moving cat model, simulating a stalking predator. In experiment 2, we used a camouflaged cat model simulating an ambush predator. Both experiments show evidence suggesting heavier individuals (which previous literature has linked to impaired flight performance) responded more quickly to the model cat. Heavier individuals also had shorter interscan intervals. In contrast to a previous study, both experiments found individuals with a higher intake rate were not faster at responding to the cat model. In addition, individuals in experiment 1 that head turned more while scanning were slower to respond to the stalking cat model. Our work suggests that although heavier individuals may have impaired escape performance they appear to show behavioural compensation by allocating more attention to anti-predator behaviour and by modifying their interscan intervals, resulting in faster response times to a ground predator. We suggest more experiments investigating response time to different predatory types and explicitly manipulating state to elucidate cause and effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez F (1993) Alertness signalling in 2 rail species. Anim Behav 46:1229–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednekoff PA (1996) Translating mass dependent flight performance into predation risk: an extension of Metcalfe & Ure. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:887–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednekoff PA, Houston AI (1994) Avian daily foraging patterns: effects of digestive constraints and variability. Evol Ecol 8:36–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (2002) Why are scanning patterns so variable? An overlooked question in the study of anti-predator vigilance. J Avian Biol 33:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bischof HJ (1988) The visual-field and visually guided behavior in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Physiol [A] 163:329–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (2000) JWatcher 0.9. An introductory users guide. Animal Behaviour Laboratory, MacQuarie University, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW, Dukas R (2003) The behavioural ecology of a cognitive constraint: limited attention. Behav Ecol 14:151–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell W (1993) Escape responses by redshanks, Tringa totanus, on attack by avian predators. Anim Behav 46:609–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell W, Quinn JL, Whittingham MJ, Butler S (2003) Good foragers can also be good at detecting predators. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1069–1076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R, Kamil AC (2000) The cost of limited attention in blue jays. Behav Ecol 11:502–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman JB, Hake MK (1990) Monitoring starvation risk: adjustments of body reserves in greenfinches (Carduelis chloris L.) during periods of unpredictable foraging success. Behav Ecol 1:62–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Juricic E, Tran E (2007) Changes in vigilance and foraging behaviour with light intensity and their effects on food intake and predator detection in house finches. Anim Behav 74:1381–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Juricic E, Jiminez MD, Lucas E (2002) Factors affecting intra- and inter-specific variations in the difference between alert distances and flight distances for birds in forested habitats. Can J Zool 80:1212–1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Juricic E, Erichsen JT, Kacelnik A (2004) Visual perception and social foraging in birds. Trends Ecol Evol 19:25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald BM, Turner DC (2000) Hunting behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations. In: Tuner DC, Bateson P (eds) Domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart NS (2001) Variations in cone photoreceptor abundance and the visual ecology of birds. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 187:685–697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hart A, Lendrem DW (1984) Vigilance and scanning patterns in birds. Anim Behav 32:1216–1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasson O (1991) Pursuit-deterrent signals—communication between prey and predator. Trends Ecol Evol 6:325–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd CR (1996) Interspecific attraction to the mobbing calls of black capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:287–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones KA, Whittingham MJ (2008) Anti-predator signals in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs in response to habitat structure and different predator types. Ethology 114:1033–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones KA, Krebs JR, Whittingham MJ (2007) Vigilance in the third dimension: head movement not scan duration differs in response to different predator models. Anim Behav 74:1181–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaby U, Lind J (2003) What limits predator detection in blue tits (Parus caeruleus): posture, task or orientation? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:534–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenward RE (1978) Hawks and doves—factors affecting success and selection in goshawk attacks on woodpigeons. J Anim Ecol 47:449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krams I (2002) Mass-dependent take-off ability in wintering great tits (Parus major): comparison of top-ranked adult males and subordinate juvenile females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:345–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krams I, Krama T (2002) Interspecific reciprocity explains mobbing behaviour of the breeding chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:2345–2350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Godin JGJ (1996) Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey. Behav Ecol 7:264–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kullberg C (1998) Does diurnal variation in body mass affect take-off ability in wintering willow tits? Anim Behav 56:227–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kullberg C, Fransson T, Jakobsson S (1996) Impaired predator evasion in fat blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:1671–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lendrem DW (1983) Predation risk and vigilance in the blue tit (parus caeruleus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:9–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1987) Vigilance while feeding and its relation to the risk of predation. J Theor Biol 124:303–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Back to the basics of antipredatory vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Anim Behav 58:537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lind J, Cresswell W (2005) Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Behav Ecol 16:945–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind J, Fransson T, Jakobsson S, Kullberg C (1999) Reduced take-off ability in robins (Crithacus rubecula) due to migratory fuel load. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod R (2006) Why does diurnal mass change not appear to affect the flight performance of alarmed birds? Anim Behav 71:523–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marler P (1956) Behaviour of the chaffinch, Fringilla coelebs. Behav Suppl 5:1–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin GR, Jarrett N, Tovey P, White CR (2005) Visual fields in flamingos: chick-feeding versus filter-feeding. Naturwissenschaften 92:351–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1990) The value of fat reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and predation. Acta Biother 38:37–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe NB, Ure SE (1995) Diurnal-variation in-flight performance and hence potential predation risk in small birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 261:395–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand O, Granstrom A (1997) Post-dispersal predation on Pinus sylvestris seeds by Fringilla spp: ground substrate affects selection for seed color. Oecologia 110:353–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Tris J, Diaz JA, Telleria JL (2004) Loss of body mass under predation risk: cost of antipredatory behaviour or adaptive fit-for-escape? Anim Behav 67:511–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2005) Escape response delays in wintering redshank, Tringa totanus, flocks: perceptual limits and economic decisions. Anim Behav 69:1285–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scannell J, Roberts G, Lazarus J (2001) Prey scan at random to evade observant predators. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:541–547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzkopf L, Shine R (1992) Costs of reproduction in lizards—escape tactics and susceptibility to predation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegfried WR, Underhill LG (1975) Flocking as an anti-predator strategy in doves. Anim Behav 23:504–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treherne JE, Foster WA (1980) The effects of group-size on predator avoidance in a marine insect. Anim Behav 28:1119–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Veen IT, Lindstrom KM (2000) Escape flights of yellowhammers and greenfinches: more than just physics. Anim Behav 59:593–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Veasey JS, Metcalfe NB, Houston DC (1998) A reassessment of the effect of body mass upon flight speed and predation risk in birds. Anim Behav 56:883–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield DP (2003) Redshank tringa totanus flocking behaviour, distance from cover and vulnerability to sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus predation. J Avian Biol 34:163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittingham MJ, Butler S, Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2004) The effect of limited visibility on vigilance behaviour and speed of predator detection: implications for the conservation of granivorous passerines. Oikos 106:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witter MS, Cuthill IC, Bonser RHC (1994) Experimental investigations of mass-dependent predation risk in the European starling, Sturnus vulgaris. Anim Behav 48:201–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods M, McDonald RA, Harris S (2003) Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mamm Rev 33:174–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Matt Denny, Matt Wood and Julian Howe for their help catching chaffinches. We also thank Dave Wilson for animal husbandry. Katherine Jones was funded by a British Biological Sciences Research Council Studentship and Mark Whittingham by a British Biological Sciences Research Council David Phillips Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine A. Jones.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Lindström

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, K.A., Krebs, J.R. & Whittingham, M.J. Heavier birds react faster to predators: individual differences in the detection of stalking and ambush predators. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63, 1319–1329 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0778-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0778-6

Keywords

Navigation