In a foraging game, predators must catch elusive prey while avoiding injury. Predators manage their hunting success with behavioral tools such as habitat selection, time allocation, and perhaps daring-the willingness to risk injury to increase hunting success. A predator's level of daring should be state dependent: the hungrier it is, the more it should be willing to risk injury to better capture prey. We ask, in a foraging game, will a hungry predator be more willing to risk injury while hunting? We performed an experiment in an outdoor vivarium in which barn owls (Tyto alba) were allowed to hunt Allenby's gerbils (Gerbillus andersoni allenbyi) from a choice of safe and risky patches. Owls were either well fed or hungry, representing the high and low state, respectively. We quantified the owls' patch use behavior. We predicted that hungry owls would be more daring and allocate more time to the risky patches. Owls preferred to hunt in the safe patches. This indicates that owls manage risk of injury by avoiding the risky patches. Hungry owls doubled their attacks on gerbils, but directed the added effort mostly toward the safe patch and the safer, open areas in the risky patch. Thus, owls dared by performing a risky action-the attack maneuver-more times, but only in the safest places-the open areas. We conclude that daring can be used to manage risk of injury and owls implement it strategically, in ways we did not foresee, to minimize risk of injury while maximizing hunting success.

Growing feathers and mounting immune responses are both energetically costly for birds. According to the life history trade-off hypothesis, it has been posited that the costs of feather growth lead to temporal isolation between molt and other expensive activities, reproduction for example. In contrast to life cycle events, the need to mount an immune response can occur at any time, including during feather growth. Thus, we hypothesized that mounting an immune response during feather growth may divert energy and resources from feather growth and impair feather renewal. To test this hypothesis, we clipped or plucked the same feathers of male house sparrows Passer domesticus biblicus. In the clipped group (n  16), the feathers were absent with no regrowth; in the plucked group (n  14), feathers were absent and regrowth was initiated. We also had an intact control group of 15 sparrows. We then initiated an inflammatory immune response by subcutaneous injection over the left breast muscle of the birds with a lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and quantified behavioral and physiological responses. We predicted that sparrows with plucked feathers would incur the highest energetic costs while mounting an immune response, and would increase their foraging effort to offset this cost. We found no difference in body mass and resting metabolic rates among sparrows subjected to the different feather and immune treatments. However, we did find that while sparrows with plucked feathers increased foraging efficiency following the immune challenge by paying fewer but longer visits to the food tray, allowing them to maintain food consumption. Foraging efficiency in sparrows with clipped feathers was reduced. We also found that quality of newly grown feathers after the immune challenge was poorer in the plucked group, suggesting that mounting an immune response competes with feather growth for resources.

No abstract

An advantage of huddling in the cold is that the individual animals involved can maintain body temperature while saving energy. Since house sparrows Passer domesticus biblicus store little fat, but inhabit relatively cold climates, we tested the hypothesis that they huddle at night. While recording body temperature and body mass of 18 house sparrows when they were either caged individually, or free in an aviary, we observed that when free in the aviary, the sparrows huddled at low ambient temperatures and more birds huddled, in tighter and tighter formation, as ambient temperature decreased. However, their body temperatures were not significantly different from when they spent the night individually caged. When free to huddle, the birds lost significantly less body mass during the course of a day than when individually caged. This reduction in body mass loss may be of particular importance during periods of adverse environmental conditions, especially for small birds that manage their energy budgets on a daily basis.

Birds lose feathers, whether during molt or by accident, and replace them by processes that are energetically demanding. We hypothesized that house sparrows Passer domesticus biblicus use behavioral means to save energy when feathers are lost, and tested the general prediction that house sparrows growing new feathers adjust their behavior to minimize the energy costs of foraging and to increase net energy gain from their food. To test these predictions we divided 18 house sparrows into three groups: 1) plucked – house sparrows from which we plucked 15 flight feathers; 2) cut – house sparrows in which the same 15 feathers were cut off at the calamus below the barbs; and 3) control – unmanipulated house sparrows with plumage intact. We recorded both the quantity of seeds the house sparrows ate and the time they spent foraging from assay food patches. We found that ‘plucked’ sparrows growing new feathers adjust their foraging behavior by reducing their feeding time and the number of visits to a food patch. This allowed them to increase their patch harvest rate while maintaining a steady body mass.