Training barn owls: a powerful tool in ecological experiments
In: Israel Journal of Ecology and EvolutionDepartment of Zoology, Tel Aviv University
Search for other papers by Aziz Subach in
Current site
Google Scholar
Predators affect prey directly by predation and indirectly by triggering behavioral responses that aim at reducing predation risk. In this paper, I present a method for training an avian predator which can allow separating between its direct and indirect effects on prey in various experimental setups. Barn owls are found to be a valuable tool for empirically testing different hypotheses related to predator-prey interactions, population dynamics, and inter-specific competition, all performed in the field using authentic rodent prey and their natural predators. Barn owls are raised and trained to participate in field experiments using classical conditioning, and are trained either to catch rodents or only to fly above a certain area without making any attempt to attack the prey, simulating solely predation risk. Body mass is a crucial factor in the training procedure, and I thus define five body mass ranges that characterize different behavioral stages in the training of owls. A logistic model is used to calculate and to predict changes in the body mass during the growth and training periods of owls. Finally, I discuss several possible implications of the usage of trained barn owls in empirical studies.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Abrahams MV, , Dill LM. 1989. A determination of the energetic equivalence of the risk of predation. Ecology. 70:999–1007.
-
Abramsky Z, , Pinshow B. 1989. Changes in foraging effort in two gerbil species correlate with habitat type and intra- and interspecifc activity. Oikos. 56:43–53.
-
Abramsky Z, , Rosenzweig ML, , Pinshow B, , Brown JS, , Kotler BP, , Mitchell WA. 1990. Habitat selection: an experimental field test with two gerbil species. Ecology. 71:2358–2369.
-
Abramsky Z, , Strauss E, , Subach A, , Kotler BP, , Riechman A. 1996. The effect of barn owls (Tyto alba) on the activity and microhabitat selection of Gerbillusallenbyi and G. pyrmaidum. Oecologia. 105:313–319.
-
Brown JS.1988. Patch use and indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 22:37–47.
-
Brown JS, , Alkon PU. 1990. Testing values of crested porcupine habitats by experimental food patches. Oecologia. 83:512–518.
-
Brown JS, , Kotler BP, , Mitchell WA. 1994. Foraging theory, patch use, and the structure of a Negev desert granivore. Ecology. 75:2286–2300.
-
Caraco T, , Marindale S, , Pulliam HR. 1980. Avian flocking in the presence of a predator. Nature. 285:400–401.
-
Danin A.1978. Plant species diversity and plant succession in a sandy area in northern Negev. Flora. 167:409–422.
-
Holt RD.1977. Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol. 12:197–229.
-
Konishi M.1973. How the owl tracks its prey: experiments with trained barn owls reveal how their acute sense of hearing enables them to catch prey in the dark. Am Sci. 61:414–424.
-
Kotler BP.1984. Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology. 65:689–701.
-
Kotler BP.1991. Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology. 72:2249–2260.
-
Kotler BP, , Ayal Y, , Subach A. 1994. Effects of predatory risk and resource renewal on the timing of foraging activity in a gerbil community. Oecologia. 100:391–396.
-
Kotler BP, , Brown JS, , Oldfield A, , Thorson J, , Cohen D. 2001. Foraging substrate and escape substrate: patch use by three species of gerbils. Ecology. 82:1781–1790.
-
Kotler BP, , Brown J, , Shomen M, , Berger-Tal O, , Bouskila A. 2010. Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance and state-dependent foraging. Proc R Soc Lond B. 277:1469–1474.
-
Lima SL.1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav. 27:215–290.
-
Lima SL, , Dill LM. 1991. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool. 68:619–640.
-
Meyrom K, , Motro Y, , Leshem Y, , Aviel S, , Izhaki I, , Argyle F, , Charter M. 2009. Nest-box use by the Barn Owl Tyto alba in a biological pest control program in the Beit She'an valley, Israel. Ardea. 97:463–467.
-
Mitchell WA, , Abramsky Z, , Kotler BP, , Pinshow B, , Brown JS. 1990. The effect of competition on foraging activity in desert rodents – theory and experiments. Ecology. 71:884–854.
-
Paine RT.1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat. 100:65–75.
-
Rosenzweig ML, , Abramsky Z. 1997. Two gerbils of the Negev: a long-term investigation of optimal habitat selection and its consequences. Evol Ecol. 11:733–756.
-
Rosenzweig ML, , Abramsky Z, , Subach A. 1997. Safety in numbers: sophisticated vigilance by Allenby's gerbil. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 94:5713–5715.
-
Rosenzweig ML, , MacArthur RH. 1963. Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Am Nat. 97:209–223.
-
Scharf I, , Lubin Y, , Ovadia O. 2011. Foraging decisions and behavioural flexibility in trap-building predators: a review. Biol Rev. 86:626–639.
-
Seligmann H, , Anderson SC, , Autumn K, , Bouskila A, , Saf R, , Tuniyev BS, , Werner YL. 2007. Analysis of the locomotor activity of a nocturnal desert lizard (Reptilia: Gekkonidae: Teratoscincus scincus) under varying moonlight. Zoology. 110:104–117.
-
Taylor I.1994. Barn owls: predator-prey relationships and conservation. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
-
Werner EE, , Gilliam JF. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 15:393–425.
-
Werner EE, , Peacor SD. 2003. A review of trait-mediated interactions in ecological communities. Ecology. 84:1083–1100.
-
Ricklefs RE1968 Patterns of growth in birds. Ibis. 110:419–451.
-
Ziv Y, , Abramsky Z, , Kotler BP, , Subach A. 1993. Interference competition and temporal and habitat partitioning in 2 gerbil species. Oikos. 66:237–246.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 489 | 117 | 14 |
| Full Text Views | 17 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 19 | 2 | 0 |
Training barn owls: a powerful tool in ecological experiments
In: Israel Journal of Ecology and EvolutionDepartment of Zoology, Tel Aviv University
Search for other papers by Aziz Subach in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Predators affect prey directly by predation and indirectly by triggering behavioral responses that aim at reducing predation risk. In this paper, I present a method for training an avian predator which can allow separating between its direct and indirect effects on prey in various experimental setups. Barn owls are found to be a valuable tool for empirically testing different hypotheses related to predator-prey interactions, population dynamics, and inter-specific competition, all performed in the field using authentic rodent prey and their natural predators. Barn owls are raised and trained to participate in field experiments using classical conditioning, and are trained either to catch rodents or only to fly above a certain area without making any attempt to attack the prey, simulating solely predation risk. Body mass is a crucial factor in the training procedure, and I thus define five body mass ranges that characterize different behavioral stages in the training of owls. A logistic model is used to calculate and to predict changes in the body mass during the growth and training periods of owls. Finally, I discuss several possible implications of the usage of trained barn owls in empirical studies.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 489 | 117 | 14 |
| Full Text Views | 17 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 19 | 2 | 0 |
