IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i4p854-862..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distress calls in tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor): are conspecifics or predators the target?

Author

Listed:
  • Carrie L. Branch
  • Todd M. Freeberg

Abstract

Distress calls are produced by a wide variety of small prey species when they are captured by a predator and may serve as signals to warn group members of danger, to attract others that might aid the captured individual, and to confuse the predator. Tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) produce distress calls when captured by a predator or a human. Here, we tested several hypotheses to explain the distress calling in this species. Individual titmice were captured in walk-in treadle traps. We recorded captured individuals in an ordered sequence that modeled approaching threat, capture, and finally escape. Titmice produced more total notes as the level of threat increased (as the observer moved closer to the trap restraining them) and as they were captured and held. Captured titmice produced distress calls comprising many high-frequency components but also many low-frequency broadband components and did so whether other titmice were present or absent. Playbacks of distress calls indicate that the notes of these calls transmit over long distances (>60 m) and do not readily attract larger avian predators to the area. Variation in production of lower frequency and broadband notes by captured titmice was not associated with variation in aggressive behavior. Taken together, our results lend support both to the "protean defense" hypothesis and to a dual "mobbing/alarm" hypothesis. Distress calls in titmice may therefore function either to confuse the predator or to warn conspecifics and facilitate their mobbing behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:4:p:854-862.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/ars041
    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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    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:4:p:854-862.. 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.