Skip to main content
Dryad

Data from: Captive birds exhibit greater foraging efficiency and vigilance after anti-predator training

Cite this dataset

Luther, David (2024). Data from: Captive birds exhibit greater foraging efficiency and vigilance after anti-predator training [Dataset]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sbcc2frg2

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.

README: Captive birds exhibit greater foraging efficiency and vigilance after anti-predator training

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