IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v25y2014i2p378-385..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antipredator behavior: escape flights on a landscape slope

Author

Listed:
  • Tore Slagsvold
  • Jan Hušek
  • Jason D. Whittington
  • Karen L. Wiebe

Abstract

Few studies have reported flight responses of prey on landscape slopes in the wild, and little theoretical work is available. We present a formal model to predict whether prey should move up or down the hillside after detecting a perched raptor as determined by the duration of the attack once launched by the predator, perching height of the predator, and the landscape slope. We recorded escape responses of blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus and great tits Parus major when approached by a human in the field. This was done in the postfledging period, when the demand for food is high, and when the families usually move to a new site, presumably perceived to be safer, to continue foraging after being exposed to a predator. We found that great tit families, which prefer to forage close to the ground, flew uphill, matching the model’s prediction. However, blue tit families, which forage higher in the canopy, did not move uphill but moved higher up in the trees. Vertical movement upward may be the safest option if the predator is located on the ground. Modeling escape flights may encourage detailed studies of attack and escape behaviors in animals and provide insights in predator–prey interactions in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Tore Slagsvold & Jan Hušek & Jason D. Whittington & Karen L. Wiebe, 2014. "Antipredator behavior: escape flights on a landscape slope," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(2), pages 378-385.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:2:p:378-385.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru003
    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. Mark Broom & Graeme D. Ruxton, 2005. "You can run--or you can hide: optimal strategies for cryptic prey against pursuit predators," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(3), pages 534-540, May.
    2. Theodore Stankowich & Richard G. Coss, 2007. "Effects of risk assessment, predator behavior, and habitat on escape behavior in Columbian black-tailed deer," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(2), pages 358-367.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Biesinger, Zy & Bolker, Benjamin M. & Lindberg, William J., 2011. "Predicting local population distributions around a central shelter based on a predation risk-growth trade-off," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(8), pages 1448-1455.
    2. Dana M. Williams & Diogo S.M. Samia & William E. Cooper & Daniel T. Blumstein, 2014. "The flush early and avoid the rush hypothesis holds after accounting for spontaneous behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(5), pages 1136-1147.
    3. 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.
    4. Savannah L Bartel & John C Kilgo, 2023. "White-tailed deer responses to acoustic predator cues are contingent upon past land use and contemporary fire regime," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(6), pages 1013-1022.

    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:25:y:2014:i:2:p:378-385.. 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.