Center for Biodiversity Conservation Behavioural Ecology

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.

Introduction Increasing the variance of gain or the chance of foraging being

The study of the environmental predation risk of various animals
belongs to the important biological science tasks of our day. The
principal aim is to obtain knowledge about animal behaviour and
its role in the ecosystem as far as the exchange of matter and
energy is concerned. All behaviour takes time and consumes
energy. Predation pressure is important selective force in many
animal populations and natural ecosystems (Marc & Carolee
1994; Ricardo et al. 2002). Logic and mathematical theory
suggest that when prey are numerous their predators increase
in numbers, reducing the prey population, which in turn causes
predator number to decline. The prey population eventually
recovers, starting a new cycle. (Purves et al. unpubl). In response
to such pressure, prey species have evolved diver sensory
mechanisms and behavioural responses in increase the
probability survival (Endler 1991). The strength of interactions
between predators and their prey (interaction strength) varies
enormously among species within ecological communities (Enric
& Micheal 2001). For example, the investigation the effects of
perceived predation risk by manipulation the amount of
protective cover available to starlings were reduced their body
mass (Witter et al. 1994). It meant that the predator decreased
their foraging behaviour. Furthermore, rapid reversible
environmental changes are responsible for the evolution of
flexible physiology and rapid physiological responses (Piersma &
Lindstrom, 1997). The energetic environment is also important
in determining the optimal levels of reserves that birds carry.
interrupted should lead to an increase in optimal reserve levels.
This has been demonstrated in experimentally in various species
(Ekman & Hake 1990; Bednekoff & Krebs 1995; Witter et al.
1994; Witter & Swaddle 1997; Cuthill et al. 2000). Predation risk
has been argued to be one of the key ecological factors
determining the body mass of birds (McNamara & Houston
1990; Houston et al. 1993; Roger & Smith 1993).
Birds have long been among the favored research subjects of
ecologists and evolutionary biologists (Weatherhead & Blouin-
Demers 2004). One of those researches, Tree Sparrow (Passer
montanus) birds have been extremely studied in the respect
(Sean et al. 2001); among of the numerous studies have been
contributed and published on the species of Passer. A number of
studies are consistent with the hypothesis that limited attention
constrains forager performance. Some of these studies
documented a change in foraging behaviour after exposure to
model predator (Metcalfe et al. 1987; Reuven & Alan, 2000).
Such a change could be caused by reduced attention to food
when more attention was devoted to predator avoidance.
Predator–prey interactions are commonly viewed as
evolutionary arm races. Although there have been many studies
documenting how animals respond to predators (Cheney &
Seyfarth 1990; Endler 1991; Marler et al. 1992; Hauser 1996;
Blumstein et al. 2000), relatively few studies reveal both how
predators hunt prey and how prey acquire an alarm response to
a novel or newly introduced predator (Berger et al. 2001;

1 Royal University of Phnom Penh

Center for Biodiversity Conservation
Ricardo et al. 2002). One example of the previous experiment
(Sean et al. 2001) in blue tit (Parus caeruleus), the optimal
amount of reserves that a small bird should carry depends upon
a number of factors, including the availability of food and
environmental predation risk levels. Theory predicts that, if
predation risk increases, then a bird should maintain a lower
level of reserves. Previous experiments have given mixed results:
some have shown reduced reserves and some, increased
reserves (McNamara et al. 1994).
To indentify the ability of adaptive anti-predator behaveiour, 15
male tree sparrows (Passer montanus) and a domestic cat (Felis
catus) have been subjected for the study. We simulated such a
foraging scenario under controlled laboratory conditions to
quantify the importance of limited attention. Bearing in this
mind, the purpose of research experiment is to find out if the
presence of predator (domestic cat Felis catus) would have any
effect on the foraging behavious of tree sparrow Passer
montanus. In addition to investigate whether tree sparrows
compensate for increased or decreased, we hypothesized that
the presence of Felis catus generates two predictions: (1)
increase or (2) decrease the time of their foraging food.
Materials and Methods
Fifteen male tree sparrow birds were used in the study. Only
adult males were chosen because we wanted to eliminate the
sex variable during the experiments. Moreover, in the previous
study they particularly suited to such an investigation as they do
in feeding territories (Simon, 2000) and because of male sparrow
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.
For the predator Domestic Cat (Felis catus) were providing from
the neighbor near my home. The experiments were taken place
(in my home) in a quite room (5m x 3m x 2.5m). There were two
experiments in the study, first is the control experiment, and
second is the treatment experiment.
Before the experiments, all birds were put in the same cage
(45cm x 30cm x 45cm) due to they are usually live in a society
group (Torda et al. 2004) and they were not given a food for a
haft day before experiment. I putted the same breeding (food)
of rice seed with water in separate container as the seller usually
bred them. All birds were given a tab number individually from
B1 to B15. The cage of bird experiment is 40cm x 30cm x 40cm in
diameter. The adult Felis catus was took in a cage (30cm x 30cm
x 30cm) during experiments
The experiment was done on Saturday, January 31, 2009 and
repeated for the treatment experiment on Wednesday, February
04, 2009. For the control experiment, each fifteen birds took
2 Royal University of Phnom Penh
Behavioural Ecology
their tune to get experiment for 150 times (10 time for each
with count time in second). The time will stop when they assess
the food (the seed). Second, the treatment experiment, the
processes are repeated from the previous once but difference by
putting a domestic in the experiment. In order to prevent of
loosing sample, I have to separate two cages between bird cage
and Felis catus cage. Significantly, both experiments were done
at the same condition and starting from the 8 a.m. to the end of
each experiment. Experiments were involving cageling or
tethering procedure can be individually identified and monitored
through time (Barbeau & Scheibling 1994).
To gathering the data, I had to stay and hide away from the cage
experiments.
Statistical Analysis
We do used non-parametric statistics due to the sample size is
small to reliably represent a normal distribution. I calculated the
amount of time and frequency that each bird spent on the
control experiment (no cat) and treatment experiment (within
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
between first experiment and repeated experiment of the
significant mean of time and frequency of male birds which they
respond to the predator (cat) was placed in the treatment
experiment. Because each bird was subjected to all the
experimental manipulations, the level of significant were set at
P<0.05 and we conducted a subprogram of excel (Magastat.xla)
for analyzing the statistic method above.
Results
At the beginning of the experiments, we could well analyze the
cognitive mechanisms of tree sparrow behaviour. Furthermore,
because finding food is something many animals do repeatedly
play an important role in foraging (Sara, 2000). In the control
experiment (Figure 1), Birds seem to show up their learning
behaviour in finding food due to the graph of control
experiment. However, in this experiment we found that the bird
number 7 (B7) spent a long time (720 seconds) in finding food in
contrast with the bird number 5 (B5) just spent only (243
seconds) a short time in the first time experiment. Moreover, we
can assume that all bird learned very fast to recognize the food
in ten time experiments (see figure 1), where the total mean
decreased from 1st time experiment (M = 480.0667) to 10th
time experiment (M = 107.5333). With this notification, it was
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
seconds) compared to the bird (B5 - Mt = 142.7 seconds).
Center for Biodiversity Conservation Behavioural Ecology

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.

3 Royal University of Phnom Penh

Center for Biodiversity Conservation Behavioural Ecology

The Comparison Between Control and Treatment

Experiment
700

600
Time in Second

500

Mean of 15 Birds spend for each

400
test in Control Experiment

300 Mean of 15 Birds spend for each

test in Treatment Experiment
200

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.

The Comparison of Birds between Two

Experiments Mean of Time for Individual Bird in
Control Experiment
450 Mean of Time for Individual Bird in
Treatment Experiment
400

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).

4 Royal University of Phnom Penh

Center for Biodiversity Conservation
Discussion
This study demonstrated that, during the experiments all birds
have been changed in response to change (figure 3 & figure 4) in
perceived predation risk, domestic cat (Filis catus). Taken at face
value, these responses agree with theoretical prediction. Our
analysis compared the mean of control and treatment
experiments which an exactly significant p value (p < 0.05) for
the test. The results of our study are generally consistent with
the hypothesis that tree sparrow would avoid or afraid the
scent, sound and figure of the predator (cat) by trying to escape
the cage. It meant that when cat appeared, birds spent their
time in assessing the food. The study is support the theory
(McNamara & Houston 1990; Bednekoff & Houston 1990)
predicts that the energetic environmental changing is also
important in determining the optimal levels of reserves that bird
carry.
On the one hand, the results (figure 4) demonstrate that tree
sparrow able to assessing the food eventhough either with a
presence or without presence the predator (cat). In addition,
consistent with the prediction that the avian (bird) body had to
responds to predator (cat). We have a notice that bird (B4)
showed distinguish from the 14 birds. We assumed that B4
might be only considering the carry energy (food) better that
predator (cat) or it might be adapted well to the predator.
Previous experiment showed that, in response to the intense
selection pressures imposed by predation, prey animals have
evolved many adaptations for reducing its impact (Edmunds
1974; Endler 1986, 1991; Alberto et al. 2005). However, we
suggested that all bird spent longer time when the presence of
domestic cat.
Concerning to the anti-predator experiment, I used the
separated cages for the tests which showed an inaccurate one
during the experiments. Thus, when we conducted each
experiment from the 1st to 10th time experiments, the level of
decreasing of time as showed in the figure 3. In conclusion, we
found that the study support the previous hypothesis that when
the presence of predation risk (Felis catus) is conducted, the
changing in foraging behaviour of prey (Passer montanus).
References:
Alberto P., Mare H., & Peter M. (2005). Do response of galliform
birds vary adaptively with predators size? Anim Cogn: 8, pp.
200-210.
Andrea S. Griffin, Rahul S. Savani, Kristina H. and Louis L.
(2004). Mixed-species aggregation in birds: zenaida doves,
Zenaida aurita, respond to the alarm calls of carib grackles,
Quiscalus lugubris. Animal Behavior, volume 70, issue 3, pp.
507-515.
5 Royal University of Phnom Penh
Behavioural Ecology
Barbeau M. A. & Scheibling R. E. (1994). Procedural effects of
prey tethering experiences: Predation of juvenile scallops
by crabs and sea stars. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. vol.111, pp.
305-310.
Bednekoff P. A. & Houston A. I. (1994). Dynamic models of
mass-dependent predation, risk-sensitive foraging and
premigratory fattening in bird. Ecology 75, pp. 1131-1140.
Bednekoff P. A. & Krebs J. R. (1995). Great tit fat reserves:
effects of changing and unpredictable feeding day length.
Funct. Ecol. 9, pp. 457-462.
Berger, J., Swenson, J. E. & Persson, I. (2001). Recolonizing
Carnivores and naive prey: conservation lessons from
Pleistocene extinctions. Science 291, pp. 1036–1039.
Blumstein, D. T., Daniel, J. C., Griffin, A. S. & Evans, C. S.(2000).
Insular tammar wallabies (Macropus eugenii ) respond to
visual but not to acoustic cues from predators. Behav. Ecol.
11, 528–535.
Cheney D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the
world. Chicago University Press.
Christopher S., Evans and Linda E. (2007). Representational
signaling in birds. Biology letters, 3, pp 8-11.
Cuthill, I. C., Maddocks S. A., Weall C. V. & Jones E. K. M.
(2000). Body mass regulation in response to changes in
feeding predictability and overnight energetic expenditure.
Behav. Ecol. 11, pp. 189-195.
Daniel S., Richanrd P., Duncan, Tim M., Blackburm, Phillop C.
and Louis L. (2005). Big brains, enhanced cognitive, and
response of birds to novel environments. PNAS vol. 102 no.
15, pp 5460-5465.
Dennis W. L. (1983). Predation risk and vigilance in blue tit
(Parus caeruleus). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology,
issn 0340-5443 (print) 1432-0762 (online), volume 14,
number 1, pp. 9-13.
Edmunds M, (1974). Defense in animals. A survey of anti-
predator defenses. Longmans, London.
Ekman J. B. & Hake M. K. (1990). Monitoring starvation risk:
adjustments of body reserves in greenfinches (Carduelis
chloris L.) during periods of unpredictable foraging success.
Behav. Ecol. 1, pp. 62-67.
Endler JA (1991). Interactions between predators and prey. In
Behavioral ecology (ed. J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies). pp. 169 -
202. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
Endler JA (1986). Defense again predators. In: Feder ME, Lauder
GV (eds) Predator–prey relationships: perspectives and
approaches from the study of lower vertebrates. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 109–134
Enric S. & Micheal H. G., (2001). Community-wide distribution of
predator-prey interaction strength in the kept forests.
PNAS, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 3678-3683.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.052028
Field Rob H. and Anderson Guy Q. A. (2004). Habitat use by
breeding tree sparrows Passer montanus. Ibis, volume 146,
supplement 2, pp. 60-68(9).
Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Houston A. I., McNamara J. M. & Hutchinson J. M. C. (1993).
General results concerning the trade-off between gaining
Center for Biodiversity Conservation Behavioural Ecology

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.

6 Royal University of Phnom Penh