Skip to main content
Log in

Do responses of galliform birds vary adaptively with predator size?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Past studies of galliform anti-predator behavior show that they discriminate between aerial and ground predators, producing distinctive, functionally referential vocalizations to each class. Within the category of aerial predators, however, studies using overhead models, video images and observations of natural encounters with birds of prey report little evidence that galliforms discriminate between different raptor species. This pattern suggests that the aerial alarm response may be triggered by general features of objects moving in the air. To test whether these birds are also sensitive to more detailed differences between raptor species, adult chickens with young were presented with variously sized trained raptors (small, intermediate, large) under controlled conditions. In response to the small hawk, there was a decline in anti-predator aggression and in aerial alarm calling as the young grew older and less vulnerable to attack by a hawk of this size. During the same developmental period, responses to the largest hawk, which posed the smallest threat to the young at all stages, did not change; there were intermediate changes at this time in response to the middle-sized hawk. Thus the anti-predator behavior of the adult birds varied in an adaptive fashion, changing as a function of both chick age and risk. We discuss these results in light of current issues concerning the cognitive mechanisms underlying alarm calling behavior in animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1982) How vervet monkeys perceive their grunts: field playback experiments. Anim Behav 30:739–751

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark WS, Wheeler BK (1987) Hawks. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Collias NE, Collias EC (1967) A field study of the red jungle fowl in north-central India. Condor 69:360–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Collias NE, Joos M (1953) The spectrographic analysis of sound signals of the domestic fowl. Behaviour 5:175–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Curio E (1976) The ethology of predation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds M, (1974) Defense in animals. A survey of anti-predator defenses. Longmans, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1986) Defense again predators. In: Feder ME, Lauder GV (eds) Predator–prey relationships: perspectives and approaches from the study of lower vertebrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 109–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1991) Interactions between predators and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral biology: an evolutionary approach, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans CS, Evans L, Marler P (1993) On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Anim Behav 45:23–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans CS, Macedonia JM, Marler P (1993) Effects of apparent size and speed on the response of chickens, Gallus gallus, to computer-generated simulations of aerial predators. Anim Behav 46:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans CS, Marler P (1991) On the use of video images as social stimuli in birds: audience effects on alarm calling. Anim Behav 41:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans CS, Marler P (1992) Female appearance as a factor in the responsiveness of male chickens during anti-predator behaviour and courtship. Anim Behav 43:137–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Goethe F (1940) Beobachtungen undt Versuche über angeborene Schreckreaktionen junger Aurhühner (Tetrao urogallus L.). Z Tierpsychol 4: 165-167

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouzoules H, Gouzoules S, Marler P (1985) External reference and affective signalling in mammalian communication. In: Ziven G (ed) The development of expressive behavior. Academic, New York, pp 77–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray PH (1966) Historical notes on the aerial predator reaction and the Tinbergen hypothesis. J Hist Behav Sci 2:330–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Green R, Carr WS, Green M (1968) The hawk-goose phenomenon: further confirmation and a search for the releaser. J Psychol 69:271–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyger M, Marler P, Pickert R (1987) Semantics of an avian alarm call system: the male domestic fowl; Gallus domesticus. Behaviour 102:15–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyger M, Karakashian SJ, Marler P (1986) Avian alarm calling: Is there an audience effect?. Anim Behav 34:1570–1572

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch J, Lindley RH, Tolman EC (1955) An experimental test of an alleged innate sign stimulus. J Comp Physiol Psychol 48:278–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakashian SJ, Gyger M, Marler P (1988) Audience effects on alarm calling in chickens (Gallus gallus). J Comp Psychol 102:129–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzig H (1940) Untersuchungen zur Lebensweise des Moorschneehuhns (Lagopus lagopus L.) während der Jugendentwicklung. J Ornithol 88:139–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruijt, JP (1964) Ontogeny of behaviour in the Burmese red jungle fowl. Behaviour Suppl 12:1–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz K (1939) Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung. Zool Anz Suppl 12:69–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedonia JM, Evans CS (1993) Variation among mammalian alarm call systems and the problem of meaning in animal signals. Ethology 93:177–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedonia JM, Polak JF (1989) Visual assessment of avian threat in semi-captive ringtailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Behaviour 111:291–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Manser M, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2001) Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency. Trends Cogn Sci 6:55–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Marler P (1956) Behavior of the chaffinch. Behaviour Suppl 6:1–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Marler P (1961) The logical analysis of animal communication. J Theoret Biol 1:295–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Marler P (1985) Representational vocal signals of primates. Fortschr Zool 31:211–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Marler P, Evans CS, Hauser MD (1992) Animal signals: motivational, referential, or both?. In: Papousek H, Jürgens U, Papousek M (eds) Nonverbal communication: comparative and developmental approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Marler P, Evans CS (1996) Bird calls: just emotional displays or something more? Ibis 138:26–33

    Google Scholar 

  • McNiven MA (1960) Social releaser mechanisms in birds. A controlled replication of Tinbergen’s study. Psychol Rec 19:259–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng HK (1951) The Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii (Bonaparte). PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca

  • Melzack R, Penick E, Beckett A (1959) The problem of “innate fear” of the hawk shape: an experimental study with mallard ducks. J Comp Physiol Psychol 52:694–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller HC, Parker PG (1980) Naive ducklings show different cardiac responses to hawk than to goose models. Behaviour 74:100–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller VD (1961) Quantitative Luftfeind-Attrappenversuche bei Auer- und Birkhühnern (Tetrao urogallus L. und Lyrurus tetrix L.). Z Naturforschung 16:551–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton I (1986) The sparrowhawk. Buteo Books, Vermillion, SD

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockett PC (1955) A note on “An experimental test of an alleged innate sign stimulus”. Percept Mot Skills 5:155–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfield RN (1990) Pre-incubation behavior and paternity assurance in the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) [Bonaparte]). PhD dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980a) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence for predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210:801–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980b) Vervet monkey alarm calls: semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Anim Behav 28:1070–1094

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth R, Cheney DL (1986) Vocal development in vervet monkeys. Anim Behav 34:1640–1658

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1990) The assessment by vervet monkeys of their own and another species’ alarm calls. Anim Behav 40:754–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2003) Signalers and receivers in animal communication. Annu Rev Psychol 54:145–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleidt W (1961a) Über die Auslösung der Flucht vor Raubvögeln bei Truthühnern. Naturwissenschaften 48:141–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleidt W (1961b) Reaktionen von Truthühnern auf fliegende Raubvögel und Versuche zur Analyse ihrer AAM’s. Z Tierpsychol 18:534–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman PW (1985) Alarm calls of Belding’s ground squirrel to aerial predators: nepotism of self-preservation? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:313–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, DF (1977) Parental food calling & role of the young in the Burmese red jungle fowl. Anim Behav 25:594–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, AW (1971) Parental and courtship feeding in red jungle fowl. Auk 88:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N (1948) Social releasers and the experimental method required for their study. Wilson Bull 60:6–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters JR (1990) Anti-predator behavior of lapwings: field evidence of discriminative abilities. Wilson Bull 102:49–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuberbühler K, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1999) Conceptual semantics in a nonhuman primate. J Comp Psychol 113:33–42

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was approved by AALAC and conforms with USA State and Federal animal care and welfare guidelines

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Palleroni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Palleroni, A., Hauser, M. & Marler, P. Do responses of galliform birds vary adaptively with predator size?. Anim Cogn 8, 200–210 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0250-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0250-y

Keywords

Navigation