Visual cues of predation risk outweigh acoustic cues: a field experiment in black-capped chickadees

Abstract

Foragers rely on various cues to assess predation risk. Information theory predicts that high certainty cues should be valued more than low certainty cues. We measured the latency of black-capped chickadees ( Poecile atricapillus ) to resume feeding during winter in response to cues that conferred different degrees of certainty about current predation risk: a high certainty visual cue (predator mount) and a lower certainty acoustic cue (conspecific mobbing calls), presented either alone or in combination. As predicted, chickadees took longer to resume feeding after the visual than the acoustic cue, and this effect was greatest under conditions of high starvation risk (i.e. low temperatures). Presenting both cues together produced the same foraging delay as the visual cue alone under low starvation risk, but surprisingly, resulted in lower responses under high starvation risk compared to the visual cue alone. We suggest that this may be due to prey using a form of information updating, whereby differences in the timing of perception of acoustic versus visual cues interacts with energetic constraint to shape perceived risk. Although the sequential perception of cues is likely in a range of decision-making contexts, studies manipulating the order in which cues are perceived are needed to test existing models of multimodal cue integration.

Risk Odors Deriving from Predator Abdominal Gland Secretions Mediate Non-Consumptive Effects on Prey

“…NCEs have been well-studied in aquatic and terrestrial systems (Werner and Peacor 2003;Benard 2004;Ferrari et al 2010;Breviglieri et al 2017;Say-Sallaz et al 2019), in both insect (Hermann and Landis 2017) and non-insect groups (Dennis et al 2010;Auld and Relyea 2011). Most studies have revealed the roles of odor or visual cues in mediating NCEs (Wisenden 2000;Ferrari et al 2010;Hermann and Thaler 2014;Hermann and Landis 2017;Pears et al 2018;Arteaga-Torres et al 2020). However, the nature of these cues and how prey can exploit these cues to detect predators are still not clear.…”

No effect of passive integrated transponder tagging method on survival or body condition in a northern population of Black‐capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus)

“…Unfortunately, this was not discovered until after recaptured birds were found to be alive despite not being detected at the feeders. Video recordings at the feeders that were used to evaluate the reliability of PIT tag registrations by the RFID system also confirmed that PIT implanted birds did use the feeders but were not detected (Arteaga‐Torres et al., 2020). The difference in PIT tag specifications between leg band PIT tags and implanted PIT tags precludes us from being able to do a like‐for‐like comparison of identical PIT tags deployed using different techniques (e.g., leg bands versus implants) on detectability, and we cannot assess how differences in tag orientation may also have contributed to the lower detection probability of the implanted PIT tags.…”

“…Although survival from RFID redetections may still underestimate actual survival due to permanent dispersal, it provides a better estimate than mist net recaptures. Only chickadees with leg band PIT tags could be reliably redetected by RFID feeder devices, due to the RFID antenna being unable to detect the smaller implanted PIT tags (Arteaga‐Torres et al., 2020) and control birds lacking PIT tags. RFID equipment became operational in the fall of 2018, and we examined apparent survival based on RFID redetections during spring 2019 (10 March–4 April), fall 2019 (18 September–21 November), spring 2020 (1 March–20 March), and fall 2020 (29 October–31 December).…”

Welcome to the Pyrocene: animal survival in the age of megafire

“…Prey animals are able to detect the cues of predators with which they share a sufficiently long evolutionary history (Carthey & Blumstein, 2018). Such cues may be olfactory, such as predator scent marks, scats, or urine (Wisenden, 2000), visual, such as sighting the predator itself (Arteaga-Torres et al, 2020), or acoustic, such as hearing the predator's mating or territorial calls ( Hettena et al 2014). The cues of fire include acrid odours (olfactory), smoke plumes and flames (visual), and crackling sounds (auditory).…”