Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2000 Apr 7;267(1444):733–737. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1064

Evidence for a rule governing the avoidance of superfluous escape flights.

W Cresswell 1, G M Hilton 1, G D Ruxton 1
PMCID: PMC1690590  PMID: 10821621

Abstract

When an imminent attack by a predator on a group of birds is signalled to non-detectors only by the departure of the detector, non-detectors may make time-wasting false-alarm flights in response to mistaken or non-predator-driven departures. The frequency of false-alarm flights might be reduced if group members assess the reason for single departures before responding. Immediate flights should only occur after multiple simultaneous departures, because these are only likely to be generated by an attack. The response delay between the detectors' departure and the next birds that respond should then be dependent on the number of detectors. On sparrowhawk attack, response delays in redshanks decreased significantly as detector number increased, controlling for raptor conspicuousness and proximity, and flock size and spacing. If response delay is modified because of risk dilution, it should increase with flock size and, consequently, the rate of alarm flights due to mistakes should decrease. However, response delay did not increase and flight frequency due to misidentification of non-raptors or non-predator-driven departures did not decrease with flock size. Significantly more feeding time was lost by birds in small flocks, suggesting that the dilution effect decreased the cost of each false-alarm flight rather than their frequency.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (175.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Elgar M. A. Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1989 Feb;64(1):13–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1989.tb00636.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hamilton W. D. Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol. 1971 May;31(2):295–311. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  4. Pulliam H. R. On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol. 1973 Feb;38(2):419–422. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(73)90184-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Roberts G. How many birds does it take to put a flock to flight? Anim Behav. 1997 Dec;54(6):1517–1522. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES