Search

Avian predators vary in their degree-of-threat to chickadees; for example, smaller owls and hawks are of higher threat to chickadees as they can easily maneuver through the trees, while larger predators cannot. We conducted an operant go/no-go discrimination task to investigate the effect of signal degradation on perceived threat. Chickadees were trained to respond to high-threat northern saw-whet owl (NSWO) or low-threat great horned owl (GHOW) calls that were recorded at short distances, and then tested with high- and low-threat owl calls that were rebroadcast and re-recorded across six distances (25 m, 50 m, 75 m, 100 m, 150 m, and 200 m). Subjects were further tested with high-threat and low-threat synthetic tones produced to mimic the natural calls across the six distances. We predicted that birds would perceive and respond to: (1) high-threat predator calls at longer distances compared to low-threat predator calls, and (2) synthetic tones similarly compared to the stimuli that they were designed to mimic. We believed chickadees would continue to perceive and respond to predators that pose a high threat at further distances; however, only responding to low-threat stimuli was consistent across distance recordings. Synthetic tones were treated similarly to natural stimuli but at lower response levels. Thus, the results of this study provide insights into how chickadees perceive threat.

Smaller owls and hawks are high-threat predators to small songbirds, like chickadees, in comparison to larger avian predators due to smaller raptors’ agility (Templeton et al. in Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:5479–5482, 2005). The current literature focuses only on high- and low-threat predators. We propose that there may be a continuum in threat perception. In the current study, we conducted an operant go/no-go experiment investigating black-capped chickadees’ acoustic discrimination of predator threat. After obtaining eight hawk and eight owl species’ calls, we assigned each species as: (1) large, low-threat, (2) mid-sized, unknown-threat and (3) small-, high-threat predators, according to wingspan and body size. Black-capped chickadees were either trained to respond (‘go’) to high-threat predator calls or respond to low-threat predator calls. When either low-threat predator calls were not reinforced or high-threat predator calls were not reinforced the birds were to withhold responding (‘no-go’) to those stimuli. We then tested transfer of training with additional small and large predator calls, as well as with the calls of several mid-sized predators. We confirmed that chickadees can discriminate between high- and low-threat predator calls. We further investigated how chickadees categorize mid-sized species’ calls by assessing transfer of training to previously non-differentially reinforced (i.e., pretraining) calls. Specifically, transfer test results suggest that mid-sized broad-winged hawks were perceived to be of high threat whereas mid-sized short-eared owls were perceived to be of low threat. However, mid-sized Cooper’s hawks and northern hawk owls were not significantly differentially responded to, suggesting that they are of medium threat which supports the notion that perception of threat is along a continuum rather than distinct categories of high or low threat.

Chameleons are arboreal lizards with highly independent, large amplitude eye movements. In response to an approaching threat, a chameleon on a vertical pole moves so as to keep itself away from the threat. In so doing, it shifts between monocular and binocular scanning of the threat and of the environment. We analyzed eye movements in the Common chameleon, Chamaeleo chameleon, during avoidance response for lateralization, that is, asymmetry at the functional/behavioral levels. The chameleons were exposed to a threat, approaching horizontally from clockwise or anti-clockwise directions, and that could be viewed monocularly or binocularly. Our results show three broad patterns of eye use, as determined by durations spent viewing the threat and by frequency of eye shifts. Under binocular viewing, two of the patterns were found to be both side dependent, that is, lateralized and role dependent (“leading” or “following”). However, under monocular viewing, no such lateralization was detected. We discuss these findings in light of the situation not uncommon in vertebrates, of independent eye movements and a high degree of optic nerve decussation and that lateralization may well occur in organisms that are regularly exposed to critical stimuli from all spatial directions. We point to the need of further investigating lateralization at fine behavioral levels.