IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i1p83-92..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antipredator calls of tufted titmice and interspecific transfer of encoded threat information

Author

Listed:
  • Stacia A. Hetrick
  • Kathryn E. Sieving

Abstract

Birds in family Paridae (titmice and chickadees) produce complex and distinct alarm vocalizations in response to predator encounters. In 2 controlled aviary experiments, we tested for information transfer between 2 different species of parids. We first recorded the vocal and nonvocal alarm displays of captive tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) flocks responding to presentations of live predators and controls (no animal and quail). Second, we broadcast the recorded titmouse vocalizations to captive Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and recorded their vocal and nonvocal responses. By evaluating the situational specificity of responses by, both, titmice (production specificity, H1) and chickadees (response specificity, H2) to their respective treatments, we could test for information transfer (H3) from titmice to chickadees. Analyses revealed that information content encoded in titmouse calls completely distinguished the different predation threats presented to them (confirming H1). Similarly, chickadee responses clearly distinguished the different predator threats encoded in titmouse calls they heard (confirming H2). Responses of the 2 species were, both, parallel and threat appropriate, confirming that heterospecific information transfer occurred (from titmice to chickadees; H3). Evidence abounds that parids convey important facilitative benefits to other species within Holarctic forest bird communities. We propose that information sharing about predation threats may underlie these benefits for species that participate in communication networks with parids and suggest titmice function as community informants.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacia A. Hetrick & Kathryn E. Sieving, 2012. "Antipredator calls of tufted titmice and interspecific transfer of encoded threat information," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 83-92.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:1:p:83-92.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arr160
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ellen J. Mahurin & Todd M. Freeberg, 2009. "Chick-a-dee call variation in Carolina chickadees and recruiting flockmates to food," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(1), pages 111-116.
    2. Jason R. Courter & Gary Ritchison, 2010. "Alarm calls of tufted titmice convey information about predator size and threat," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(5), pages 936-942.
    3. Kenneth A. Schmidt & Eunice Lee & Richard S. Ostfeld & Kathryn Sieving, 2008. "Eastern chipmunks increase their perception of predation risk in response to titmouse alarm calls," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(4), pages 759-763.
    4. Jukka T. Forsman & Robert L. Thomson & Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, 2007. "Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(5), pages 888-894.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kimberley J. Mathot & Josue David Arteaga-Torres & Anne Besson & Deborah M. Hawkshaw & Natasha Klappstein & Rebekah A. McKinnon & Sheeraja Sridharan & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2024. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of unimodal and multimodal predation risk assessment in birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Dominique Guillo & Nicolas Claidière, 2020. "Do guide dogs have culture? The case of indirect social learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carrie L. Branch & Todd M. Freeberg, 2012. "Distress calls in tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor): are conspecifics or predators the target?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 854-862.
    2. Ping Huang & Kathryn E. Sieving & Colette M. St. Mary, 2012. "Heterospecific information about predation risk influences exploratory behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 463-472.
    3. Tuomo Jaakkonen & Sami M. Kivelä & Christoph M. Meier & Jukka T. Forsman, 2015. "The use and relative importance of intraspecific and interspecific social information in a bird community," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 55-64.
    4. Ari E. Martínez & Rosana T. Zenil, 2012. "Foraging guild influences dependence on heterospecific alarm calls in Amazonian bird flocks," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 544-550.
    5. Reetta Hämäläinen & Panu Välimäki & Jukka T Forsman, 2023. "Size of an interspecific competitor may be a source of information in reproductive decisions," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(1), pages 33-41.
    6. Kimberley J. Mathot & Josue David Arteaga-Torres & Anne Besson & Deborah M. Hawkshaw & Natasha Klappstein & Rebekah A. McKinnon & Sheeraja Sridharan & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2024. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of unimodal and multimodal predation risk assessment in birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:1:p:83-92.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.