Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1043–1051 | Cite as

Urbanization alters fear behavior in black-capped chickadees

  • Jenna L. Van Donselaar
  • Jenna L. Atma
  • Zachary A. Kruyf
  • Hattie N. LaCroix
  • Darren S. Proppe
Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Urban landscapes contain a multitude of novel sensory stimuli, and urban dwelling animals, such as songbirds living near human dwellings, must quickly learn how to respond to these unfamiliar cues. When exposure reveals that a stimulus is associated with a cost, fearful behavior should increase. Conversely, neophobic fear should decrease when negative outcomes do not regularly follow the stimulus. Because exposure to anthropogenic stimuli is more common in birds that inhabit urbanized landscapes, their fear response patterns should more accurately reflect the risks associated with these stimuli. We conducted a series of feeder and playback experiments to explore whether urbanization altered black-capped chickadees’ (Poecile atricapillus) fear responses to model cats, humans, a novel object, and anthropogenic noise. We predicted that fearful responses to cat models would increase in birds as urbanization increased because negative interactions with cats are more common in the city. However, we expected urban birds to be less fearful of our other stimuli because fitness costs are absent or less severe. As predicted, the fear of cats increased with urbanization, but the fear of noise decreased - as indicated by willingness to visit a feeding station. Other stimuli were not associated with urbanization, which may be related to the use of county and city parks where human presence is relatively common. Nonetheless, our results suggest that plastic fear responses to novel stimuli may facilitate urban success in the black-capped chickadee. More generally, behavioral plasticity may indicate the ability of a species to thrive in the urban environment.

Keywords

FID Feeder Cat Park Bird Noise Novel object 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All protocols were approved by the Calvin College Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Research was supported financially by the Calvin College Biology Department and Science Division. All authors contributed equally at each stage of the project, thus all could be equally considered as first author. We would like to thank research assistants from the Investigations in Urban Ecology course that contributed to the collection and compilation of field data, C. Holwerda and P. Jasperse for assisting in the design and construction of field equipment, and Kent County, the City of Grand Rapids, and several private landowners for allowing us to use their property. Finally, we thank Dr. Susan Lerman and three anonymous reviewers for their comments which greatly improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11252_2018_783_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 14.5 kb)
11252_2018_783_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 11.2 kb)
11252_2018_783_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (58 kb)
ESM 3 (XLSX 57.7 kb)

References

  1. Abolins-Abols M, Hope S, Ketterson E (2016) Effect of acute stressor on reproductive behavior differs between urban and rural birds. Ecol Evol 6:6546–6555.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2347 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behav 49:227–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atwell J, Cardoso G, Whittaker D, Campbell-Nelson S, Robertson K, Ketterson E (2012) Boldness behavior and stress physiology in a novel urban environment suggest rapid correlated evolutionary adaptation. Behav Ecol 23:960–969.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars059 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker PJ, Bentley AJ, Ansell RJ, Harris S (2005) Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area. Mammal Rev 35:302–312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. TREE 25:180–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barkan CPL (1990) A field test of risk-sensitive foraging in black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Ecol 71:1–400.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckerman AP, Boots M, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban bird declines and the fear of cats. Anim Conserv 10:320–325.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00115.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bender J, Fidino M, Limbrick K, Magle S (2016) Assessing nest success of black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) in an urban landscape using artificial cavities. Wilson J Ornithol 128:425–429.  https://doi.org/10.1676/1559-4491-128.2.425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein D, Ferando E, Stankowich T (2009) A test of the multipredator hypothesis: yellow-bellied marmots respond fearfully to the sight of novel and extinct predators. Anim Behav 78:873–878.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bókony V, Kulcsár A, Tóth Z, Liker A (2012) Personality traits and behavioral syndromes in differently urbanized populations of house sparrows (Passer domesticus). PLoS One 7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonter DN, Zuckerberg B, Sedgwick CW, Hochachka WM (2013) Daily foraging patterns in free-living birds: exploring the predation–starvation trade-off. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.3087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Book DL, Freeberg TM (2015) Titmouse calling and foraging are affected by head and body orientation of cat predator models and possible experience with real cats. Anim Cogn 18:1155–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0888-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantwell LR, Johnson WT, Kaschel RE, Love DJ, Freeberg TM (2016) Predator-risk-sensitive foraging behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) in response to the head orientation of snake predator models. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:533–539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2070-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carrete M, Martínez-Padilla J, Rodríguez-Martínez S, Rebolo-Ifrán N, Palma A, Tella JL (2016) Heritability of fear of humans in urban and rural populations of a bird species. Sci Rep 6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31060
  16. Cooper WE, Hawlena D, Pérez-Mellado V (2009) Interactive effect of starting distance and approach speed on escape behavior challenges theory. Behav Ecol 20:542–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Croft D, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nat 400:563–566.  https://doi.org/10.1038/23028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crooks KR, Suarez AV, Bolger DT (2004) Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biol Conserv 115:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Damskey J, Gall MD (2016) Anthropogenic noise reduces approach of black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) and tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) to tufted titmouse mobbing calls. Condor 119:26–33  https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-16-146.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Echeverría AI, Vassallo AI (2008) Novelty responses in a bird assemblage inhabiting an urban area. Ethol 114:616–624.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01512.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ESRI (2013) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.2. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer JD, Cleeton SH, Lyons TP, Miller JR (2012) Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. BioSci 62:809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foote JR, Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM, Smith SM (2010) Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/bkcchi;  https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.39
  25. Fort KT, Otter KA (2004) Effects of habitat disturbance on reproduction in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) in northern British Columbia. Auk 121:1070–1080.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4090476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gendall J, Lill A, Beckman J (2015) Tolerance of disturbance by humans in long-time resident and recent colonist urban doves. Avian Res 6:7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-015-0018-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gravolin I, Key M, Lill A (2014) Boldness of urban Australian magpies and local traffic volume. Avian Biol Res 7:244–250.  https://doi.org/10.3184/175815514X14151981691872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenberg R, Mettke-hofmann C (2001) Ecological aspects of neophobia and neophilia in birds. Curr Ornithol 16:119–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1211-0_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greggor AL, Clayton NS, Fulford AJ, Thornton A (2016) Streetsmart: faster approach towards litter in urban areas by highly neophobic corvids and less fearful birds. Anim Behav 117:123–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.029 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Hitchcock CL, Sherry DF (1990) Long-term memory for cache sites in the black-capped chickadee. Anim Behav 40:701–712.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80699-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kays RW, DeWan AA (2004) Ecological impact of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve. Anim Conserv 7:273–283.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943004001489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kroodsma DE (1990) Using appropriate experimental designs for intended hypotheses in ‘song’playbacks, with examples for testing effects of song repertoire sizes. Anim Behav 40:1138–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kyle SC, Freeberg TM (2016) Do Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) attend to the head or body orientation of a perched avian predator? J Comp Psychol 130:145–152.  https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. LaZerte S, Slabbekoorn H, Otter K (2016) Learning to cope: vocal adjustment to urban noise is correlated with prior experience in black-capped chickadees. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 28.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindsay AR (2011) Black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus). Michigan breeding bird atlas II. Kalamazoo, MI.Google Scholar
  36. Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP (2013) The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
  37. Lowry H, Lill A, Wong BBM (2011) Tolerance of auditory disturbance by an avian adapter, the noisy miner. Ethol 117:490.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01902.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lowry H, Lill A, Wong BBM (2013) Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol Rev 88:537–549.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Marzluff JM, Withey JC, Whittaker KA, Oleyar MD, Unfried TM, Rullman S, DeLap J (2007) Consequences of habitat utilization by nest predators and breeding songbirds across multiple scales in an urbanizing landscape. Condor 109:516–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Møller AP (2010) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behav Ecol 21:365–371.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Møller AP, Ibáñez-Álamo JD (2012) Escape behavior of birds provides evidence of predation being involved in urbanization. Anim Behav 84:341–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Proppe DS, Sturdy CB, St. Clair CC (2011) Flexibility in animal signals facilitates adaptation to rapidly changing environments. PLoS ONE 6.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Proppe DS, Byers KA, Sturdy CB, St. Clair CC (2013) Physical condition of black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) in relation to road disturbance. Can J Zool 91:842–845.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2013-0081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  45. Rebolo-Ifrán N, Carrete M, Sanz-Aguilar A, Rodríguez-Martínez S, Cabezas S, Marchant TA, Bortolotti GR, Tella JL (2015) Links between fear of humans, stress and survival support a non-random distribution of birds among urban and rural habitats. Sci Rep 5:13723.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13723 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Schepers MJ, Proppe DS (2017) Song playback increases songbird density near low to moderate use roads. Behav Ecol 28:123–130.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shochat E (2004) Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker birds. Oikos 106:622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shustack DP, Rodewald AD (2008) Understanding demographic and behavioral mechanisms that guide responses of neotropical migratory birds to urbanization: a simulation approach. Avian Conservation and Ecology 3(2):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sih A (2013) Understanding variation in behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change: a conceptual overview. Anim Behav 85:1077–1088.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith SM (1997) Black-capped chickadee. Stackpole BooksGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorace A (2002) High density of bird and pest species in urban habitats and the role of predator abundance. Ornis Fennica 79:60–71Google Scholar
  52. Stracey CM (2011) Resolving the urban nest predator paradox: the role of alternative foods for nest predators. Biol Conserv 144:1545–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Szendro P, Vincze G, Szasz A (2001) Pink noise behaviour in biosystems. Eur Biophys J 30:227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002490100143 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Trimmer P (2017) Predicting behavioural responses to novel organisms: state-dependent detection theory. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tryjanowski P, Møller AP, Morelli F, Biaduń W, Brauze T, Ciach M, Czechowski P, Czyż S, Dulisz B, Goławski A, Hetmański T (2016) Urbanization affects neophilia and risk-taking at bird-feeders. Sci Rep 6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28575
  56. Tvardíková K, Fuchs R (2010) Do birds behave according to dynamic risk assessment theory? A feeder experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:727–733.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1075-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Warner RE (1985) Demography and movements of free-ranging domestic cats in rural Illinois. J Wildl Manag 49:340–346.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3801527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warren PS, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A (2006) Urban bioacoustics: it's not just noise. Anim Behav 71:491–502.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyCalvin CollegeGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations