Visual perception and social foraging in birds

Fernández‐Juricic, Esteban; Erichsen, Jonathan Thor; Kacelnik, Alex

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.003

Cited by 194 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comprehensive vision allows birds to remain vigilant without the need to periodically interrupt feeding and scan for predators (Guillemain et al 2002;Fernández-Juricic et al 2004). This absence of comprehensive visual coverage in a tactile feeder has been found previously in black skimmers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Visual fields need to serve two key functions: (i) the detection of predators, conspecifics, potential prey and obstacles, which are remote from the animal, and (ii) the control of accurate behaviours, such as the procurement of food items, at close quarters. Both functions are potent sources of natural selection but they are potentially antagonistic (Fernández-Juricic et al 2004. This antagonism is well illustrated in birds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this more forward position of the eyes that is necessary to achieve a binocular field surrounding the projection of the bill always results in a blind area behind the head, rendering the animal more vulnerable to predation (Guillemain et al 2002;Fernández-Juricic et al 2004;Martin 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vision and touch in relation to foraging and predator detection: insightful contrasts between a plover and a sandpiper

Martin

Piersma

2008

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual fields were determined in two species of shorebirds (Charadriiformes) whose foraging is guided primarily by different sources of information: red knots (Calidris canutus, tactile foragers) and European golden plovers (Pluvialis apricaria, visual foragers). The visual fields of both species showed features that are found in a wide range of birds whose foraging involves precision pecking or lunging at food items. Surprisingly, red knots did not show comprehensive panoramic vision as found in some other tactile feeders; they have a binocular field surrounding the bill and a substantial blind area behind the head. We argue that this is because knots switch to more visually guided foraging on their breeding grounds. However, this visual field topography leaves them vulnerable to predation, especially when using tactile foraging in non-breeding locations where predation by falcons is an important selection factor. Golden plovers use visually guided foraging throughout the year, and so it is not surprising that they have precisionpecking frontal visual fields. However, they often feed at night and this is associated with relatively large eyes. These are anchored in the skull by a wing of bone extending from the dorsal perimeter of each orbit; a skeletal structure previously unreported in birds and which we have named 'supraorbital aliform bone', Os supraorbitale aliforme. The larger eyes and their associated supraorbital wings result in a wide blind area above the head, which may leave these plovers particularly vulnerable to predation. Thus, in these two shorebirds, we see clear examples of the trade-off between the two key functions of visual fields: (i) the detection of predators remote from the animal and (ii) the control of accurate behaviours, such as the procurement of food items, at close quarters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vision and touch in relation to foraging and predator detection: insightful contrasts between a plover and a sandpiper

Martin

Piersma

2008

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, we allow flexibility both in the frequency with which antipredatory scans occur and the length of those scans, and we examine the impact of the combination of both of these behavioural factors on food gathering as well as predator detection. 6 In essence, we aim to provide a bottom-up model of vigilance (based on individual behavioural events) to complement the top-down approach (based on overall distributions of events or mean values) used in earlier models (Fernández-Juricic et al, 2004). These top-down models tell us how much time should be allocated to foraging and scanning but do not address the precise way animals organize their foraging and scanning bouts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling scan and interscan durations in antipredator vigilance

Beauchamp

Ruxton

2016

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2Many prey species alternate between bouts of foraging and bouts of antipredator vigilance. Models of vigilance typically predict how much total time prey animals should allocate to vigilance but do not specify how that time should be scheduled throughout foraging. Here, we examine how the scheduling of vigilance pays off in terms of food intake and predator detection. Specifically, we study how changes in ecological factors affect the expected duration of scans to look out for predators and the duration of interscan intervals dedicated to foraging. Our framework includes factors like the risk of attack, how difficult it is to locate food and predators, and the distance to protective cover. Our individual-based model makes several predictions about scan and interscan durations, which are discussed in relation to the available empirical evidence in birds and mammals. This model of antipredator vigilance is a first step in incorporating constraints related to food gathering and the detection of predators. Adding such constraints adds a novel dimension to vigilance models and produces a variety of predictions that await empirical scrutiny.

show abstract

“…Foraging mode can also conceivably influence predation risk by altering the ability to detect predation threats. For instance, choosing a foraging mode where the head is mostly maintained down should impair threat detection by increasing visual occlusion [14]. The occurrence of a spatial gradient in predation risk within a group should thus allow foragers to select a riskier foraging mode, one that reduces threat detection and potentially allows access to other types of resources, in the centre of their groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social foragers adopt a riskier foraging mode in the centre of their groups

Beauchamp

2013

Biol. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foraging in groups provides many benefits that are not necessarily experienced the same way by all individuals. I explore the possibility that foraging mode, the way individuals exploit resources, varies as a function of spatial position in the group, reflecting commonly occurring spatial differences in predation risk. I show that semipalmated sandpipers (Calidris pusilla), a social foraging avian species, tended to adopt a riskier foraging mode in the central, more protected areas of their groups. Central birds effectively used the more peripheral group members as sentinels, allowing them to exploit a wider range of resources within the same group at the same time. This finding provides a novel benefit of living in groups, which may have a broad relevance given that social foraging species often exploit a large array of resources.

show abstract

Visual perception and social foraging in birds

Cited by 194 publications

References 53 publications

Vision and touch in relation to foraging and predator detection: insightful contrasts between a plover and a sandpiper

Vision and touch in relation to foraging and predator detection: insightful contrasts between a plover and a sandpiper

Modeling scan and interscan durations in antipredator vigilance

Social foragers adopt a riskier foraging mode in the centre of their groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About