Data from: Captive birds exhibit greater foraging efficiency and vigilance after anti-predator training
Data files
Jun 20, 2024 version files 28.64 KB
-
README.md
2.86 KB
-
SOM_Table_1_Roberts_and_Luther_2024.xlsx
25.77 KB
Abstract
Rearing animals in captivity for conservation translocation is a complex undertaking that demands interdisciplinary management tactics. The maladapted behaviors that captive animals can develop create unique problems for wildlife managers seeking to release these animals into the wild. Often, released captive animals show decreased survival due to predation and their inability to display appropriate anti-predator, vigilance, and risk-analysis behaviors. Additionally, released animals may have poor foraging skills, further increasing their vulnerability to predation. Often conservation translocation programs use anti-predator training to ameliorate these maladapted behaviors before release but find mixed results in behavioral responses. The behavioral scope of analyzing the effect of anti-predator trainings is frequently narrow; the effect of this training on an animal’s risk-analysis competency, or ability to assess the predation risk of a foraging patch and subsequently adjust its behavior, remains unstudied. Using a captive reared passerine species, the American robin (Turdus migratorius) (46 individuals), we applied an experimental giving up density test (GUD) to analyze the effect of anti-predator training on the robins’ vigilance/risk-analysis behaviors, patch choice, and the GUD of food left behind after one foraging session. Robins moved and foraged freely between three foraging patches of differing predation risk before and after a hawk silhouette was presented for one minute. Results indicate that after anti-predator training, robins displayed increased vigilance across most foraging patches and better foraging efficiency (higher vigilance and latency to forage with simultaneous lower GUD) in the safest patch. These results can have positive survival implications post-release, however, more research on this training is needed because anti-predator training has the potential to elicit indiscriminate increased vigilance to the detriment of foraging gains. Further research is required to standardize GUD's application in translocation programs with multigenerational captive-bred animals to fully comprehend its effectiveness in identifying and correcting maladaptive behaviors. GUD tests combined with behavioral analysis should be used by conservation translocation managers to examine the need for anti-predator and foraging trainings, the effects of trainings, and a group’s suitability for release.
Descriptions of data in each column are below. Time is measured in seconds.
numer ID – individual bird number
safe_before – time spent in a safe zone before treatment
mid_before – time spent in mid-zone before treatment
dang_before – time spent in the danger zone before treatment
safe_after – time spent in a safe zone after treatment
mid_after – time spent in mid zone after treatment
dang_after – time spent in danger zone after treatment
TotVig1_before – total vigilance at scan 1 before treatment
TotVig2_before – total vigilance at scan 2 before treatment
TotVig3_before – total vigilance at scan 3 before treatment
TV1_after - total vigilance at scan 1 after treatment
TV2_after - total vigilance at scan 2 after treatment
TV3_after - total vigilance at scan 3 after treatment
TF1_b – time foraging at scan 1 before treatment
TF2_b – time foraging at scan 2 before treatment
TF3_b – time foraging at scan 3 before treatment
TF1_a – time foraging at scan 1 after treatment
TF2_a – time foraging at scan 2 after treatment
TF3_a – time foraging at scan 3 after treatment
scan1_b – time bird spent scanning at time 1 before treatment
scan2_b – time bird spent scanning at time 2 before treatment
scan3_b – time bird spent scanning at time 3 before treatment
scan1_a – time bird spent scanning at time 1 after treatment
scan2_a – time bird spent scanning at time 2 after treatment
scan3_a – time bird spent scanning at time 3 after before treatment
sky1_b – time bird spent skygazing at time 1 before treatment
sky2_b – time bird spent skygazing at time 2 before treatment
sky3_b – time bird spent skygazing at time 3 before treatment
sky1_a – time bird spent skygazing at time 1 after treatment
sky2_a – time bird spent skygazing at time 2 after treatment
sky3_a – time bird spent skygazing at time 3 after treatment
relax1_b – time bird spent relaxed at time 1 before treatment
relax2_b – time bird spent relaxed at time 2 before treatment
relax3_b – time bird spent relaxed at time 3 before treatment
relax1_a – time bird spent relaxed at time 1 after treatment
relax2_a – time bird spent relaxed at time 2 after treatment
relax3_a – time bird spent relaxed at time 3 after treatment
eat1_b – time bird spent eating at time 1 before treatment
eat2_b – time bird spent eating at time 2 before treatment
eat3_b – time bird spent eating at time 3 before treatment
eat1_a – time bird spent eating at time 1 after treatment
eat2_a – time bird spent eating at time 2 after treatment
eat3_a – time bird spent eating at time 3 after treatment
fly_b – time bird spent flying before treatment
fly_a – time bird spent flying after treatment