DOI: 10.5061/dryad.f1vhhmh73
title: Data from: The risk perception and response of Azure-winged magpies: On the aspect of feeding behaviour and alarm calls

description: Prey are expected to effectively perceive predation cues, recognise
 predators, and adopt appropriate anti-predator strategies to enhance their
 chances of survival. Species with high cognitive abilities tend to be
 better at these processes, while empirical research is still lacking. The
 role of cognition in avoiding predation requires further investigation,
 especially in species with complex social structures and communication
 systems. Azure-winged magpies (Cyanopica cyanus) have demonstrated great
 talents in cognitive tasks. We conducted model presentation and playback
 experiments to test their predator detection and information transmission
 in the wild. We found that magpies exhibited distinct responses according
 to the model type (pigeon, falco,n, and cat) and eye condition of the
 models (covered or uncovered). Individuals postponed the visit to the
 feeder and took less food in response to predator and eye-uncovered
 models. The cat model was perceived as a higher risk, and magpies would
 emit alarm calls with a wider bandwidth, a higher frequency of 5%, and a
 higher frequency of 95%. We also found that the playback of alarm calls
 could induce different anti-predator behaviours from conspecifics. Our
 study examined how Azure-winged magpies perceive information and make
 decisions to avoid predators. It indicates that the alarm calls of
 Azure-winged magpies function in encoding and sharing information,
 providing an in-depth understanding of complex vocal communication and
 risk cognition in birds.
description: # The risk perception and response of Azure-winged magpies: on the aspect
 of feeding behaviour and alarm calls Dataset DOI:
 [10.5061/dryad.f1vhhmh73](10.5061/dryad.f1vhhmh73) ## Description of the
 data and file structure This dataset tests the hypothesis that
 azure-winged magpies discriminate between predator types and eye gaze,
 using alarm calls with distinct acoustic structures to convey
 predator-specific information. During the non-breeding season, five
 free-ranging magpie flocks were subjected to predator presentation and
 playback experiments. The predator presentation experiment followed a 3 ×
 2 factorial design ("model type" × "eye condition"),
 where model types included a domestic pigeon, a free-ranging cat, and a
 peregrine falcon. Each model was presented with eyes either covered
 (placed over the eyes) or uncovered (placed below the eyes). Mobbing calls
 elicited by the eye-uncovered cat and falcon models were later used in
 playback experiments. Behavioral responses—latency, number of visits, and
 pieces of food taken—were recorded from video footage. Vocalizations were
 analyzed using Raven Pro 1.6, with spectrograms generated using a Hann
 window (512-sample DFT, 50% overlap, 0.0058 s time resolution, and 86.10
 Hz frequency resolution). Five acoustic parameters were measured:
 Bandwidth 90%, Frequency 5%, Frequency 95%, peak frequency, and call
 duration. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to analyze
 feeding behavior. Latency was modeled with a Gamma distribution, while the
 number of visits and pieces of food taken followed a Poisson distribution.
 Replicate and flock identity were included as random effects to control
 for habituation, with baseline measures treated as covariates. For
 predator presentations, fixed factors included model type, eye condition
 and their interaction. The mobbing call target (cat or falcon) was the
 fixed factor for playbacks . A posthoc pairwise comparison test with
 Bonferroni correction was conducted in each model to assess differences
 between all levels of the fixed factors and the interactions.  Acoustic
 parameters (log-transformed) were analyzed using Gaussian GLMMs, with
 model type, eye condition, and their interaction as fixed effects. Results
 demonstrated that azure-winged magpies effectively perceive risk and the
 playback of alarm calls could induce different anti-predator behaviours
 from conspecifics. ### Files and variables #### File: raw\_data.xlsx
 **Description:**  This is a XLSX file containing raw data of article
 "The risk perception and response of Azure-winged magpies: on the
 aspect of feeding behaviour and alarm calls", including three tables.
 The Table 1 is the raw data of model presentation experiments. The Table 2
 is the raw data of acoustic parameters of mobbing calls. The Table 3 is
 the raw data of playback experiments. **Variables in sheet 1: Model
 presentation experiments** Number of variables: 10 **Variable list:** *
 Flock identity: five distinct flocks with a minimum distance of 500 m from
 the others ensuring that vocal signals from one flock could not reach
 others. - Replicate: each trial was replicated three times at every site.
 * Model type: "1"- the Pigeon model, "2"- the Falcon
 model, "3"- the Cat model. - Eye condition: "1"- the
 uncovered eyes, "2"- the covered eyes. * Latency in stimulus:
 seconds it takes magpies to visit the feeder since the start of stimulus
 period. - Number of visits in stimulus: the total number of visits of the
 focal flock within the 10-minute stimulus trail. * Pieces of food taken
 in stimulus: quantifying the amount of food taken by the birds within the
 10-minute stimulus trial. - Latency in baseline: seconds it takes magpies
 to visit the feeder since the start of the baseline period. * Number of
 visits in baseline: the total number of visits of the focal flock within
 the 10-minute baseline trail. - Pieces of food taken in baseline:
 quantifying the amount of food taken by the birds within the 10-minute
 baseline trail. **Variables in sheet 2: Acoustic parameters** Number of
 variables: 8 **Variable list:** * Flock identity: five distinct flocks
 with a minimum distance of 500 m from the others ensuring that vocal
 signals from one flock could not reach others. - Model type:
 "1"- the Pigeon model, "2"- the Falcon model,
 "3"- the Cat model. * Eye condition: "1"- the
 uncovered eyes, "2"- the covered eyes. - BW 90% (Hz): Bandwidth
 90%, the difference between the 5% and 95% frequencies. * Freq 5% (Hz):
 Frequency 5%, the frequency that divides the spectrum into two intervals
 which contain 5% and 95% of the energy. - Freq 95% (Hz): Frequency 95%,
 the frequency that divides the spectrum into two intervals which contain
 95% and 5% of the energy. * Peak Freq (Hz): Peak frequency, the frequency
 at which peak power occurs; (5) Duration, the duration of the
 vocalisation. - Duration (s): the duration of the vocalisation.
 **Variables in sheet 3: Playback experiments** Number of variables: 9
 **Variable list:** * Flock identity: five distinct flocks with a minimum
 distance of 500 m from the others ensuring that vocal signals from one
 flock could not reach others. - Replicate: each trial was replicated three
 times at every site. * Model type: "2"- the Falcon model,
 "3"- the Cat model. - Latency in stimulus: seconds it takes
 magpies to visit the feeder since the start of stimulus period. * Number
 of visits in stimulus: the total number of visits of the focal flock
 within the 10-minute stimulus trail. - Pieces of food taken in stimulus:
 quantifying the amount of food taken by the birds within the 10-minute
 stimulus trial. * Latency in baseline: seconds it takes magpies to visit
 the feeder since the start of the baseline period. - Number of visits
 in baseline: the total number of visits of the focal flock within the
 10-minute baseline trail. * Pieces of food taken in baseline: quantifying
 the amount of food taken by the birds within the 10-minute baseline trail.
 ## Code/software The vocalisations of Azure-winged magpies were coded from
 the spectrograms of audio files using Raven Pro 1.6 (Cornell Laboratory of
 Ornithology, USA). All the analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM
 Corp., Armonk, NY, U.S.A.) and Origin 9.0 (OriginLab Corp., Northampton,
 MA, U.S.A.) was used for plotting.