↓ Skip to main content

Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) calling and risk-sensitive foraging in the face of threat

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) calling and risk-sensitive foraging in the face of threat
Published in
Animal Cognition, June 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0770-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Todd M. Freeberg, Tatjana Krama, Jolanta Vrublevska, Indriķis Krams, Cecilia Kullberg

Abstract

Individuals often produce alarm or mobbing calls when they detect a threat such as a predator. Little is known about whether such calling is affected by the facial orientation of a potential threat, however. We tested for an effect of facial orientation of a potential threat on tufted titmice, Baeolophus bicolor, a songbird that uses chick-a-dee calls in a variety of social contexts. In two studies, a human observer wore an animal mask that either faced or faced away from the focal bird(s). In Study 1, focal birds were individual titmice captured in a walk-in trap, and the observer stood near the trapped bird. In Study 2, focal birds were titmouse flocks utilizing a feeding station and the observer stood near the station. In both studies, calling behavior was affected by mask orientation. In Study 2, foraging and agonistic behavior were also affected. Titmice can therefore perceive the facial orientation of a potential threat, and this perception affects different behavioral systems, including calling. Our results indicate sensitivity of titmice to the facial orientation of a potential predator in two quite different motivational contexts. This work suggests the possibility of strategic signaling by prey species depending upon the perceptual space of a detected predator.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 62%
Psychology 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,874
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,332
of 1,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,575
of 227,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#31
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.