Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
The environmental predation risk: The Effect of Domestic Cat (Felis catus)
on foraging behaviour of Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus)
Mr. Sophany Phauk
Center for Conservation Biodiversity
Faculty of Science
Royal University of Phnom Penh
Abstract: Predation risk has been affected to the population of prey and ecosystems. There are many previous
experiments that test on this anti-predator interaction. Recent evidence has revealed some hypothesis that the predation
risk have affected to increase or decrease the foraging behaviour of the prey. In the experiment of the study, 15 male tree
sparrow birds (Passer montanus) and a domestic cat (Felis catus) are represented to be tested. We conducted two
experiments (control and treatment experiment) within the same condition. For the treatment experiment, we used
domestic cat to comparing with the first experiment. The results of the study showed a significant different P value > 0.05.
14 birds showed the increasing the spending time during the experiments. However, However, one bird showed a
difference in deceasing the spending time.
Ricardo et al. 2002). One example of the previous experiment their tune to get experiment for 150 times (10 time for each
(Sean et al. 2001) in blue tit (Parus caeruleus), the optimal with count time in second). The time will stop when they assess
amount of reserves that a small bird should carry depends upon the food (the seed). Second, the treatment experiment, the
a number of factors, including the availability of food and processes are repeated from the previous once but difference by
environmental predation risk levels. Theory predicts that, if putting a domestic in the experiment. In order to prevent of
predation risk increases, then a bird should maintain a lower loosing sample, I have to separate two cages between bird cage
level of reserves. Previous experiments have given mixed results: and Felis catus cage. Significantly, both experiments were done
some have shown reduced reserves and some, increased at the same condition and starting from the 8 a.m. to the end of
reserves (McNamara et al. 1994). each experiment. Experiments were involving cageling or
tethering procedure can be individually identified and monitored
To indentify the ability of adaptive anti-predator behaveiour, 15 through time (Barbeau & Scheibling 1994).
male tree sparrows (Passer montanus) and a domestic cat (Felis
catus) have been subjected for the study. We simulated such a To gathering the data, I had to stay and hide away from the cage
foraging scenario under controlled laboratory conditions to experiments.
quantify the importance of limited attention. Bearing in this
mind, the purpose of research experiment is to find out if the Statistical Analysis
presence of predator (domestic cat Felis catus) would have any
effect on the foraging behavious of tree sparrow Passer We do used non-parametric statistics due to the sample size is
montanus. In addition to investigate whether tree sparrows small to reliably represent a normal distribution. I calculated the
compensate for increased or decreased, we hypothesized that amount of time and frequency that each bird spent on the
the presence of Felis catus generates two predictions: (1) control experiment (no cat) and treatment experiment (within
increase or (2) decrease the time of their foraging food. cat). To analysis the significant statistic result, we used the
Wilconson – Mann/Whitney Test statistic method because data
were dependent sample two tail test. It was used to compare
Materials and Methods between first experiment and repeated experiment of the
significant mean of time and frequency of male birds which they
Fifteen male tree sparrow birds were used in the study. Only
respond to the predator (cat) was placed in the treatment
adult males were chosen because we wanted to eliminate the
experiment. Because each bird was subjected to all the
sex variable during the experiments. Moreover, in the previous
experimental manipulations, the level of significant were set at
study they particularly suited to such an investigation as they do
P<0.05 and we conducted a subprogram of excel (Magastat.xla)
in feeding territories (Simon, 2000) and because of male sparrow
for analyzing the statistic method above.
birds showed greater variance in condition-dependent
reproductive success that females (Pedro et al. 2000). Birds were
bought from the seller in front of the Royal Palace, Phnom Penh. Results
For the predator Domestic Cat (Felis catus) were providing from
the neighbor near my home. The experiments were taken place At the beginning of the experiments, we could well analyze the
(in my home) in a quite room (5m x 3m x 2.5m). There were two cognitive mechanisms of tree sparrow behaviour. Furthermore,
experiments in the study, first is the control experiment, and because finding food is something many animals do repeatedly
second is the treatment experiment. play an important role in foraging (Sara, 2000). In the control
experiment (Figure 1), Birds seem to show up their learning
Before the experiments, all birds were put in the same cage behaviour in finding food due to the graph of control
(45cm x 30cm x 45cm) due to they are usually live in a society experiment. However, in this experiment we found that the bird
group (Torda et al. 2004) and they were not given a food for a number 7 (B7) spent a long time (720 seconds) in finding food in
haft day before experiment. I putted the same breeding (food) contrast with the bird number 5 (B5) just spent only (243
seconds) a short time in the first time experiment. Moreover, we
of rice seed with water in separate container as the seller usually
can assume that all bird learned very fast to recognize the food
bred them. All birds were given a tab number individually from
in ten time experiments (see figure 1), where the total mean
B1 to B15. The cage of bird experiment is 40cm x 30cm x 40cm in
decreased from 1st time experiment (M = 480.0667) to 10th
diameter. The adult Felis catus was took in a cage (30cm x 30cm
time experiment (M = 107.5333). With this notification, it was
x 30cm) during experiments
indicated that all birds learnt to recognize the food very well,
except the bird (B4) spent a total mean of time (total Mt = 344.9
The experiment was done on Saturday, January 31, 2009 and
seconds) compared to the bird (B5 - Mt = 142.7 seconds).
repeated for the treatment experiment on Wednesday, February
04, 2009. For the control experiment, each fifteen birds took
On the treatment experiment side (Figure 2), there is not much the food in a long time. We found that bird (B3) spent only Mt =
difference from the first experiment. However, there are some 238.4 seconds a total of mean time in the treatment experiment
notifications of the bird spending time in assessing the food. As compared to bird (B15), Mt = 390.1 seconds (the total mean that
showed in the (figure 1), all birds were using their time in finding highest in this experiment).
Control Experiment
800
B1
700 B2
B3
600
B4
Time in Second
B5
500
B6
400 B7
B8
300 B9
B10
200
B11
100 B12
B13
0 B14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B15
Times Experiment
Figure 1: The control experiment of tree sparrow: the frequency experiment of individual bird in this
experiment showed that each time of experiments function with the time in second during the experiment.
In this experiment, all bird learnt to recognize the food very fast.
Treatment Experiment
800
B1
700
B2
600 B3
B4
Time in Second
500 B5
B6
400 B7
B8
300 B9
B10
200 B11
B12
100 B13
B14
0
B15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Times Experiment
Figure 2: The treatment experiment of tree sparrow (the repeat experiment): all birds seem to increase
spending time in finding food due to putting the predator (domestic cat) for interfering.
600
Time in Second
500
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Times Experiment
Figure 3: The comparison between control and treatment experiments of tree sparrow. The comparison of
time experiment, showed that the mean of total, 15 birds spent their time by decreased from the 1st to
10th time of experiments. Moreover, this showed when the predator (cat) appeared; birds increased their
time in foraging a food. The comparison between two tests showed a significant different level with a (P
value > 0.05). It was indicated that most birds learnt to recognize to assessing the food.
350
300
Time in Second
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Bird's Number
Figure 4: The comparison between control and treatment experiments of tree sparrow. The comparison of
individual bird showed that 14 birds spent their time by increased in the treatment experiment. However,
bird (B4) showed a different vice versa from the other bird when the predator (cat) appeared; it decreased
their time foraging a food. These mean our prediction of hypothesis is significant true that presence of
predation risk increased and also decreased the time of foraging behaviour of birds. There is no significant
different comparison between two tests in the comparison in showed in Figure 3 which a significant
different level is (P value > 0.05).
energy and avoiding predation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Torda G. Linker A. and Barta. Z (2004). Dominance Hierarchy
B341, pp. 375-397. and status signaling in captive tree sparrow (Passer
Sean A. Rands and Innes C. Cuthill (2001). Separating the effects montanus). Acta Zoologica Acaddemiae Scientiarum
of predation risk and interrupted foraging upon mass Hungaricae 50(1), pp 35-44.
changes in the blue tit Parus caeruleus. The royal society. Van Der Veen I. T. & Sivers L.S. (2000). Causes and
pp 1783-1790. Consequences of mass loss upon predator encounter:
Johan L. and Sven J. (2001). Body building and concurrent mass feeding interruption, stress or fit to flight? Functional
loss: flight adaptations in tree sparrows. The Royal Society, Ecology, ISSN 0269-8463, vol. 14, N0 5, pp. 638-644.
268, pp. 1915-1919. Volker D. (2002). Predation hazard during migratory stopover:
Marc D. H. & Carolee C. (1994). Anti-predator response to are light or heavy birds under risks? Avian Biology, volume
raptor call in wild crews, Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis. 34, issue 1, pp. 24-29.
Anim Behv, 48. pp.1469-1471. Weatherhead, P. J. & Blouin-Demers, G. (2004). Understanding
Marler P., Evans C. S. & Hauser M. D. (1992). Animal signals: avian predation: why ornithologists should study snakes.
reference, motivation or both? In Nonverbal vocal J. Avian Biol. 35: pp185-190.
Witter M. S. & Swaddle J. P. (1997). Mass regulation in juvenile
communication: comparative and developmental approa-
strarlings: response to change in food availability depends
ches (ed. H. Papoucek, U. Jurgens & M. Papoucek), pp. 66–
on initial body mass. Funct. Ecol. 11, pp. 11-15.
86. Cambridge University Press.
Witter M. S., Cuthill I. C., & Bonser R. H. C. (1994). Experimental
McNamara, J. M. and Houston A. I. (1990). The value of fat
investigations of mass-dependent predation risk in the
reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and
European starling, Sturnus vulgaris. Anim. Behav. 48,
predation. Acta Biotheor, 38, pp. 37-61.
pp.201-222.
Metcalfe NB., Huntingfird FA., & Thorpe JE. (1987). Predation
risk impairs diet selection in juvenile salmon. Anim Behav Ya-Fu L., Yen-Min K., and Eric K. Bollinger (2005). Effects of
35:pp. 1157-1162. feeding height and distance from protective cover on the
Michael W. Robbie A. Mcdonald and Stephen H. (2003). foraging behaviour of watering bird. Canadian Journal of
Predation of wildlife by domestic cat Felis catus in Great Zoology, 83(6), pp. 880-890.
Britain. Mammal Review, volume 33, issue 2, pp. 174-188. Zoltan B. Andras L. & Ferene M. (2004). The effects of predation
Pedro J. Cordero, Simon C. Griffith, Jose M. Aparicio. David T. risk on the use of social foraging tactics. Animal Behaviour,
Parkin (2000). Sexual dimorphism in house sparrow eggs. volume 67, Issue 2, pp. 301-308.
Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 48, pp. 353-357.
Piersma T. & Lindstrom A. (1997). Rapid reversible change in
organ size as a component of adaptive behavior. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 12, pp. 134-138.
Purves, W.K., G.H. Orians and H.C. Heller (unpublished). Life:
The Science of Biology. Sinauer, Sunderland MA.
Reuven D. & Alan C. K (2000). The cost of limited attention in
Blue jays. Behavioral Ecology Vol. 11, no.5, pp. 502-506.
Ricardo G. A. C., Alberto P., Marc D. H., Janeene T., & J. Partick
Kelley (2002). Rapid acquisition of an alarm response by a
neotropical primate to a newly introduced avian predator.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. DOI 10. 02pb0808.1-6.
Rogers C. M. & Smith J. N. M. (1993). Life-history theory in the
nonbreeding period: trade-offs in avian fat reserves.
Ecology 74, pp. 419-426.
Ross M. Phil B. Jacquie C. & Will C. (2005). Mass-dependent
predation risk as a mechanism for house sparrow declines?
Biology Letter, 2, pp. 43-46.
Sara J. Shettleworth (2001). Review Animal cognition and
animal behaviour. Department of Psychology and Zoology,
University of Toronto. 61, pp 277-286.
Sebastian J. S. & Melanie V. (2006). Handling time promotes the
coevolution of aggregation in predator-prey systems. Proc
Biol Sci273 1583), pp.185-191.
Simon C. Griffith (2000). A trade-off between reproduction and
a condition-depedend sexually selected ornament in the
house sparrow Passer domesticus. The royal society, 267,
pp. 1115-1119.