Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on June 23, 2009
Behavioral Ecology 2009 20(5):936-945; doi:10.1093/beheco/arp080
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/5/936    most recent
arp080v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tisdale, V.
Right arrow Articles by Fernández-Juricic, E.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tisdale, V.
Right arrow Articles by Fernández-Juricic, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Vigilance and predator detection vary between avian species with different visual acuity and coverage

Vanessa Tisdalea and Esteban Fernández-Juricicb

a Department of Biological Sciences, California State University Long Beach, Peterson Hall 1-109, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach CA 90840, USA b Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, 915 W. State Street, West Lafayette IN 47907, USA

Address correspondence to E. Fernández-Juricic. E-mail: efernan{at}purdue.edu.


  Abstract

Interspecific variations in avian visual systems have been suggested to influence antipredator strategies, yet little empirical evidence exists on how morphological and ecological factors associated with visual properties can constraint predator detection. We investigated antipredator responses (predator detection probabilities and vigilance behavior) in 2 species with different visual properties (European starlings, Sturus vulgaris, have higher acuity and wider blind areas at the rear of their heads than house sparrows, Passer domesticus) in relation to distance to the predator, body posture, and head orientation. Visual acuity may affect the distance at which a predator is detected; while the size of the blind area may influence the body postures and head orientation with the highest predator detection probabilities. Distance to the decreased predator detection probabilities of house sparrows (lower acuity) but not those of European starlings. Certain body postures and head orientations, influenced both species despite the interspecific differences in visual field configuration. Times allocated to scanning were similar, but European starlings had longer head-up scan bouts likely to enhance scanning coverage, whereas house sparrows had higher head-up scan rates probably to reduce the length of interscan intervals. We discuss alternative interpretations; however, our findings suggest that sensory configurations may limit the effectiveness of some antipredator strategies under certain ecological conditions, which has implications for understanding the evolution of different behavioral mechanisms that reduce predation risk.

Key words: predator detection, vigilance, visual acuity, visual ecology, visual fields.

Received 2 August 2008; revised 16 May 2009; accepted 19 May 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.