Long-Term Memory in Egg Predators: An Experiment with a Hooded Crow

Sonerud, Geir A.; Fjeld, Per E.

doi:10.2307/3676904

Cited by 61 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Predation on artificial nests in the present study system was shown to be repeatable within experimental trial (*length of nesting cycle) for all major predators, which was explained by a short-term effect of predator memory, rather than by independent multiple discoveries of the same nest (for details, see Weidinger and Kočvara 2010). In line with this, several aspects of predator behaviour at real nests as described here (revisitation of partially depredated nests, post-predation visits, non-lethal visits to active nests) suggest that predators can memorise nest locations, thus making learned nest searching possible (Sonerud and Fjeld 1987).…”

Section: Implications For Interpretation Of Nest Predation Patternssupporting

confidence: 61%

Foraging behaviour of nest predators at open-cup nests of woodland passerines

Weidinger

2010

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nest predation patterns and processes cannot be understood without studying the behaviour of predators. I videotaped the behaviour of 22 species of predators at 171 depredated nests of 13 passerine species, in woodland in the Czech Republic. About 32% (60/187) of all events occurred during the night; mammals accounted for 95% (57/60) and 22% (28/127) of nocturnal and diurnal predation, respectively. About 67% (57/85) of mammalian predation, but only 3% (3/102) of avian predation, occurred during night. Multiple predations by the same species were detected in at least 7% (6/82) and 42% (37/88) of nests depredated by mammals and birds, respectively. Martens Martes martes/foina took nest content mostly all at once; birds (mainly Jay Garrulus glandarius) revisited partially depredated nest during 1-4 consecutive days. Martens stayed at the depredated nest about five times longer than Jays. Martens spent similar time at nests with eggs and nestling, while Jays stayed about twice longer at nests with eggs. Mammals consumed eggs always at the nest (23/23), but took nestlings away in at least 48% (31/64) cases. Birds took the eggs and nestling away in at least 31% (18/58) and 76% (71/94) cases, respectively. Predator visits to active nests without taking the content, repeated partial predation and revisitation of previously depredated nests suggest an effect of memory on predator's foraging behaviour.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Interpretation Of Nest Predation Patternssupporting

confidence: 61%

Foraging behaviour of nest predators at open-cup nests of woodland passerines

Weidinger

2010

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although our observations on these revisitation events are too sparse to draw firm conclusions, it is in general not uncommon for predators to memorize and revisit locations of potentially profitable patches and thus learn about prey refuge use (Day and Elwood 1999;Heymann 1995). For example, spatial memory has been linked to eggpredating crows revisiting nest sites where they had prior predation success (Sonerud and Fjeld 1987) and for red foxes that quickly move between different (previously visited) profitable patches to increase their foraging efficiency (Phillips et al 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prey refuges as predator hotspots: ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) attraction to agouti (Dasyprocta punctata) dens

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the hypothesis that prey refuges attract predators, leading to elevated predator activity in the vicinity of refuges. We used camera traps to determine whether the spatial activity of a predator, the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), was biased toward refuge locations of its principal prey, the agouti (Dasyprocta punctata). We radio-tracked agoutis at night to locate active refuges and compared the activity of ocelots between these refuges and surrounding control grid locations. We found that ocelots visited the area near agouti refuges significantly more often and for longer periods of time than control locations, and that they actively investigated the refuge entrances. Both occupied and unoccupied refuges were visited, but the duration of inspection was longer at occupied refuges. As the ocelots could probably not see the agoutis within the refuges, olfaction likely cued foraging ocelots. Two refuges were repeatedly visited by the same ocelots on different days, suggesting spatial memory. Overall, our results suggest that predators can be attracted to prey refuges or refuging prey. The benefits to prey of staying nearby a refuge would thus be counterbalanced by higher likelihoods of predator encounter. This should stimulate prey to use multiple refuges alternatingly and to not enter or exit refuges at times of high predator activity.

show abstract

“…Contrary to this, the corvids could probably form a search image for artificial nests, as these were easier to detect and occurred at higher densities than natural nests. The formation of a search image for artificial nests, together with the corvids' ability to learn to find nests (Sonerud & Fjeld 1987), might explain the different temporal predation patterns found for artificial and natural nests (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Between-area Differences In Nest Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%