Skip to main content
Log in

Titmouse calling and foraging are affected by head and body orientation of cat predator models and possible experience with real cats

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although anti-predator behavior systems have been studied in diverse taxa, less is known about how prey species detect and assess the immediate threat posed by a predator based on its behavior. In this study, we evaluated a potential cue that some species may utilize when assessing predation threat—the predator’s body and head orientation. We tested the effect of this orientation cue on signaling and predation-risk-sensitive foraging of a prey species, tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor). Earlier work revealed sensitivity of titmice and related species to the presence of predator stimuli. Here, we manipulated cat models to face either toward or away from a food source preferred by titmice and then measured titmouse calling and seed-taking behavior. Titmice showed greater feeder avoidance when the cat predator models faced the feeder, compared to when the models faced away from the feeder or when titmice were exposed to control stimuli. Titmouse calling was also sensitive to predator head/body orientation, depending upon whether titmice were from sites where real cats had been observed or not. This study experimentally demonstrated that both calling and foraging of prey species can be affected by the head and body orientation of an important terrestrial predator. Prey species may therefore signal in strategic ways to conspecifics not just about predator presence, but also urgency of threat related to the more subtle cue of the head and body orientation of the predator. These findings hold potential implications for understanding animal cognition and learning processes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker PJ, Bentley AJ, Ansell RJ, Harris S (2005) Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area. Mamm Rev 35:302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartmess-LeVasseur J, Branch CL, Browning SA, Owens JL, Freeberg TM (2010) Predator stimuli and calling behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1187–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman P, Fleming P (2011) Who are you looking at? Hadeda ibises use direction of gaze, head orientation and approach speed in their risk assessment of a potential predator. J Zool 285:316–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckerman A, Boots M, Gaston K (2007) Urban bird declines and the fear of cats. Anim Conserv 10:320–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein DT, Daniel JC (2002) Isolation from mammalian predators differentially affects two congeners. Behav Ecol 13:657–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch CL, Freeberg TM (2012) Distress calls in tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor): are conspecifics or predators the target? Behav Ecol 23:854–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M (1981) Discrimination of the threat of direct versus tangential approach to the nest by incubating herring and great black-backed gulls. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95:676–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M, Murray BG (1992) Risk discrimination of eye contact and directness of approach in black iguanas (Ctenosaura similis). J Comp Psychol 106:97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt GM (1985) Animal awareness: current perceptions and historical perspective. Am Psychol 40:905–919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter J, Lyons NJ, Cole HL, Goldsmith AR (2008) Subtle cues of predation risk: starlings respond to a predator’s direction of eye-gaze. Proc R Soc B 275:1709–1715

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Churcher P, Lawton J (1987) Predation by domestic cats in an English village. J Zool 212:439–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clucas B, Marzluff JM, Mackovjak D, Palmquist I (2013) Do American crows pay attention to human gaze and facial expressions? Ethology 119:296–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WE (1998) Direction of predator turning, a neglected cue to predation risk. Behaviour 135:55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courter JR, Ritchison G (2010) Alarm calls of tufted titmice convey information about predator size and threat. Behav Ecol 21:936–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curio E (1993) Proximate and developmental aspects of antipredator behavior. Adv Study Behav 22:135–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. Zeit für Tierpsychol 48:184–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies C, Clout M (2003) The prey of domestic cats (Felis catus) in two suburbs of Auckland City, New Zealand. J Zool 259:309–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb TC, Pravosudov VV (1994) Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 86. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia PA; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, pp 1–16

  • Krama T, Krams I (2005) Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol 16:37–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krams I, Krama T, Freeberg TM, Kullberg C, Lucas JR (2012) Linking social complexity and vocal complexity: a parid perspective. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:1879–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavesley AJ, Magrath RD (2005) Communicating about danger: urgency alarm calling in a bird. Anim Behav 70:365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee WY, Lee S, Choe JC, Jablonski PG (2011) Wild birds recognize individual humans: experiments on magpies, Pica pica. Anim Cogn 14:817–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu J (2004) Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Biol Conserv 115:191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht T (1989) Discriminating between hungry and satiated predators: the response of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from high and low predation sites. Ethology 82:238–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1987) Clutch size in birds: a predation perspective. Ecology 68:1062–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1998) Stress and decision-making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav 27:215–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (2009) Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev 84:485–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas JR, Freeberg TM (2007) Information and the chick-a-dee call: communicating with a complex vocal system. In: Otter KA (ed) Ecology and behavior of chickadees and titmice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 199–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (2005) Evolutionary ecology: the Trinidadian guppy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney RF, McLean IG (1995) Historical and experimental learned predator recognition in free-living New-Zealand robins. Anim Behav 50:1193–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM, Walls J, Cornell HN, Withey JC, Craig DP (2010) Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows. Anim Behav 79:699–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens JL, Freeberg TM (2007) Variation in chick-a-dee calls of tufted titmice, Baeolophus bicolor: note type and individual distinctiveness. J Acoust Soc Am 122:1216–1226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Papworth S, Milner-Gulland E, Slocombe K (2013) Hunted woolly monkeys (Lagothrix poeppigii) show threat-sensitive responses to human presence. PLoS ONE 8:e62000

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pravosudov V, Grubb T (1998) Management of fat reserves in tufted titmice Baelophus bicolor in relation to risk of predation. Anim Behav 56:49–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa Salva O, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2007) Chicks discriminate human gaze with their right hemisphere. Behav Brain Res 177:15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soard CM, Ritchison G (2009) ‘Chick-a-dee’calls of Carolina chickadees convey information about degree of threat posed by avian predators. Anim Behav 78:1447–1453

    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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Heezik Y, Smyth A, Adams A, Gordon J (2010) Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations? Biol Conserv 143:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watve M, Thakar J, Kale A, Puntambekar S, Shaikh I, Vaze K, Jog M, Paranjape S (2002) Bee-eaters (Merops orientalis) respond to what a predator can see. Anim Cogn 5:253–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorzinski JL, Patricelli GL (2010) Birds adjust acoustic directionality to beam their antipredator calls to predators and conspecifics. Proc R Soc B 277:923–932

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zachau CE, Freeberg TM (2012) Chick-a-dee call variation in the context of “flying” avian predator stimuli: a field study of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:683–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuberbühler K, Noë R, Seyfarth RM (1997) Diana monkey long-distance calls: messages for conspecifics and predators. Anim Behav 53:589–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Rebecca Weiner for assistance with data collection in this study. Thanks to the staff of the 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. We are grateful to Sheri Browning, Gordon Burghardt, Brittany Coppinger, Elizabeth Hobson, Amiyaal Ilany, Rosalee Kaschel, Arik Kershenbaum, Indriķis Krams, Steven Kyle, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd M. Freeberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Book, D.L., Freeberg, T.M. 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 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0888-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0888-7

Keywords

Navigation