Predator recognition is essential for prey survival, allowing for appropriate antipredator strategies. Some bird species, such as the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio), distinguish not only between predators and non-threatening species but also between different predator species. Earlier studies have identified general predator "key features", especially beak shape and talons, as critical for predator recognition. The question, though, still remains of whether exchanging predator key features with those of nonpredatory species or, alternatively, completely removing them, have different or equal impact on recognition. Here we tested to ascertain whether the presence of the "incorrect key features" of a harmless pigeon (Columba livia) placed on a common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) body impairs predator recognition more efficiently than the absence of any key features. We presented an unmodified kestrel dummy and two modified kestrel dummies (one with pigeon key features, the other lacking key features) to wild red-backed shrikes defending their nest. The shrikes attacked the unmodified dummy kestrel more intensively than both kestrel modifications when defending the nest. However, shrikes did not show different responses to the kestrel with pigeon key features and the featureless kestrel. Our findings show that the absence and exchange of key features have the same effect in this case. These results are discussed in the context of recognition of a specific predator species and predators as a category in general.

Department of Zoology Faculty of Science Charles University Albertov 6 Prague 2 128 00 Czech Republic

Department of Zoology Faculty of Science University of South Bohemia Branišovská 1760 České Budějovice 370 05 Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Antonová K, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2021) Untrained birds’ ability to recognise predators with changed body size and colouration in a field experiment. BMC Ecol Evol 21:74. 10.1186/s12862-021-01807-8 PubMed DOI PMC

Aust U, Huber L (2002) Target-defining features in a people-present/people-absent discrimination task by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 30:165–176. 10.3758/BF03192918 PubMed DOI

Aydin A, Pearce JM (1994) Prototype effects in categorization by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 20:264–277. 10.1037/0097-7403.20.3.264 DOI

Beránková J, Veselý P, Sýkorová J, Fuchs R (2014) The role of key features in predator recognition by untrained birds. Anim Cogn 17:963–971. 10.1007/s10071-014-0728-1 PubMed DOI

Beránková J, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2015) The role of body size in predator recognition by untrained birds. Behav Process 120:128–134. 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.09.015 PubMed DOI

Blumstein DT (2006) The Multipredator hypothesis and the Evolutionary persistence of Antipredator Behavior. Ethology 112:209–217. 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01209.x DOI

Carlson NV, Griesser M (2022) Chapter One - Mobbing in animals: A thorough review and proposed future directions. In: Healy S, Podos J (eds) Advances in the Study of Behavior. Academic Press, pp 1–41

Carlson NV, Healy SD, Templeton CN (2017) Hoo are you? Tits do not respond to novel predators as threats. Anim Behav 128:79–84. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.006 DOI

Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, USA

Carthey AJR, Blumstein DT (2018) Predicting Predator Recognition in a changing World. Trends Ecol Evol 33:106–115. 10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.009 PubMed DOI

Courter JR, Ritchison G (2010) Alarm calls of tufted titmice convey information about predator size and threat. Behav Ecol 21:936–942. 10.1093/beheco/arq086 DOI

Curio E (1975) The functional organization of anti-predator behaviour in the pied flycatcher: a study of avian visual perception. Anim Behav 23. 10.1016/0003-3472(75)90056-1 PubMed

Dutour M, Lena J-P, Lengagne T (2016) Mobbing behaviour varies according to predator dangerousness and occurrence. Anim Behav 119:119–124. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.06.024 DOI

Ehlman SM, Trimmer PC, Sih A (2019) Prey responses to exotic predators: effects of Old risks and New cues. Am Nat 193:575–587. 10.1086/702252 PubMed DOI

Ferrari MCO, Crane AL, Chivers DP (2016) Certainty and the cognitive ecology of generalization of predator recognition. Anim Behav 111:207–211. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.026 DOI

Fišer O, Veselý P, Syrová M et al (2024) Size sometimes matters: recognition of known predators with artificially altered body size by untrained birds. Anim Behav 209:1–7. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2023.12.017 DOI

Fuchs R, Veselý P, Nácarová J (2019) Predator recognition in birds: the Use of Key features. Springer International Publishing

Gill SA, Neudorf DL, Sealy SG (1997) Host responses to cowbirds near the nest: cues for recognition. Anim Behav 53:1287–1293. 10.1006/anbe.1996.0362 PubMed DOI

Huber L, Aust U (2006) A modified feature theory as an account of Pigeon Visual categorization. Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of Animal Intelligence. Oxford University Press, pp 325–342

Klump G, Curio E (1983) Reactions of blue tits

Krätzig H (1940) Untersuchungen zur Lebensweise des Moorschneehuhns ( DOI

Krausová L, Veselý P, Syrová M et al (2022) Red-backed shrike ( PubMed DOI PMC

Kullberg C, Lind J (2002) An experimental study of Predator Recognition in Great Tit fledglings. Ethology 108:429–441. 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00786.x DOI

Lea SEG, Lohmann A, Ryan CME (1993) Discrimination of five-dimensional stimuli by pigeons: limitations of feature analysis. Q J Experimental Psychol Sect B 46:19–42. 10.1080/14640749308401093 DOI

Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640. 10.1139/z90-092 DOI

Lorenz K (1939) Vergleichende verhaltensforschung. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft Zoologischer Anzeiger, Supplementband 1269–102

Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risks and rewards of Nest Defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187. 10.1086/415838 DOI

Němec M, Kučerová T, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2021) A kestrel without hooked beak and talons is not a kestrel for the red-backed shrike ( PubMed DOI

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

R Core Team (2020) R: a Language and. Environment for Statistical Computing

Riegert J, Fuchs R (2011) Fidelity to Roost sites and Diet Composition of Wintering Male Urban Common Kestrels DOI

Salazar SM, Hlebowicz K, Komdeur J, Korsten P (2023) Repeatable parental risk taking across manipulated levels of predation threat: no individual variation in plasticity. Anim Behav 196:127–149. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.12.003 DOI

Scaife M (1976) The response to eye-like shapes by birds. I. The effect of context: a predator and a strange bird. Anim Behav 24:195–199. 10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80115-7 DOI

Špička J, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2024) Function of juvenile plumage in the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis): aggressive mimicry hypothesis. J Avian Biol 2024(e03192). 10.1111/jav.03192

Strnad M, Němec M, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2012) Red-backed shrikes ( DOI

Strnadová I, Němec M, Strnad M et al (2018) The nest defence by the red-backed shrike ( DOI

Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Behavior: Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Sci (1979) 308:1934–1937. 10.1126/science.1108841 PubMed DOI

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

Tryjanowski P, Goławski A (2004) Sex differences in nest defence by the red-backed shrike DOI

Veselý P, Buršíková M, Fuchs R (2016) Birds at the Winter Feeder do not recognize an artificially coloured predator. Ethology 122:937–944. 10.1111/eth.12565 DOI

Vrublevska J, Krama T, Rantala MJ et al (2015) Personality and density affect nest defence and nest survival in the great tit. Acta Ethol 18:111–120. 10.1007/s10211-014-0191-7 DOI