Do Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) use predator eyes in risk assessment?

Previous studies have found that Carolina chickadees and tufted titmice use a predator's head orientation to determine risk, taking fewer seeds from a feeder if an avian predator model's head is facing the feeder while ignoring the head orientation. In addition to head orientation, eyes are a cue of predator risk. In the current study, I examined whether or not chickadees and titmice used the presence of eyes of a predator model to determine when to forage for food. Plastic owl models, with their eyes covered or uncovered, were presented to wild flocks of chickadees and titmice. To test whether or not chickadees and titmice would respond to the presence of eyes, the number of seeds taken and the calling behavior of birds were compared between the two types of predator presentations (eyes covered or uncovered). Chickadees and titmice took fewer seeds when the eyes were uncovered than when they were covered. Chickadees also gave significantly more introductory notes, often used in association with the presence of predators or risk, in their calls when the eyes were visible than when the eyes of the predator model were covered. The results indicate that chickadees and titmice can use the presence of eyes on predators to determine predation risk and possibly use eye gaze to determine where a predator is looking.

Development of social play in hamsters: Sex differences and their possible functions.

In several rodent species social play appears to be necessary for proper deployment of species-specific patterns of aggressive and reproductive behavior. Specifically, in male Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus), play has been linked to the development of adult aggression. We quantified several types of social play behavior in same-sex peer groups of Syrian hamsters three times per week for three consecutive weeks after weaning, which included postnatal days 22-42 (PD22 to PD42). Male hamsters increased playful contact during PD36-PD42, whereas females showed peak playful contact during PD29-PD35. These findings suggest that the motivation for social play increases during mid-adolescence in males, but dissipates in females. To investigate the effects of social play deprivation, one hamster per litter remained pair-housed with its mother forthree weeks after weaning its littermates. In adulthood, both play-deprived and play-exposed animals received acute social defeat stress followed by social interaction testing. Play deprivation led to increased defeat-induced social avoidance in both males and females. In males, play deprivation increased fighting back during social defeat stress, whereas in females it reduced aggressive behavior during conditioned defeat testing. We suggest that social play deprivation disrupts neural circuits regulating aggression in a sex-specific manner, perhaps related to sex differences in territorial defense, but has similar effects on neural circuits regulating stress responsivity. Overall, these findings suggest that juvenile social play functions to promote coping with stress and appropriate social behavior in adulthood.

Do Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) attend to the head or body orientation of a perched avian predator?

Individuals of many prey species adjust their foraging behavior in response to the presence of a predator. Responding to predators takes time away from searching for and exploiting food resources. To balance between the need to avoid predation and the need to forage, individuals should attend to cues from predators that indicate risk. Two such cues might be the predator's head orientation (where it might be looking) and body orientation (where it might be moving). In the current study, flocks of Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis, and tufted titmice, Baeolophus bicolor, were presented with perched hawk and owl models. Predator model head and body orientation were independently manipulated relative to a feeding station birds were using. Chickadees and titmice avoided the feeders more when the heads of the models were facing toward the feeders compared to facing away from the feeders. Calling behavior of birds was also affected by head orientation of the models. No effect of predator body orientation on chickadee and titmouse behavior was detected. The results indicate that when chickadees and titmice detect a perched avian predator, they assess risk primarily based upon its head orientation. (PsycINFO Database Record