DOI: 10.5061/dryad.sbcc2frg2
title: Data from: Captive birds exhibit greater foraging efficiency and vigilance after anti-predator training

description: Rearing animals in captivity for conservation translocation is a complex
 undertaking that demands interdisciplinary management tactics. The
 maladapted behaviors that captive animals can develop create unique
 problems for wildlife managers seeking to release these animals into the
 wild. Often, released captive animals show decreased survival due to
 predation and their inability to display appropriate anti-predator,
 vigilance, and risk-analysis behaviors. Additionally, released animals may
 have poor foraging skills, further increasing their vulnerability to
 predation. Often conservation translocation programs use anti-predator
 training to ameliorate these maladapted behaviors before release but find
 mixed results in behavioral responses. The behavioral scope of analyzing
 the effect of anti-predator trainings is frequently narrow; the effect of
 this training on an animal’s risk-analysis competency, or ability to
 assess the predation risk of a foraging patch and subsequently adjust its
 behavior, remains unstudied. Using a captive reared passerine species, the
 American robin (Turdus migratorius) (46 individuals), we applied an
 experimental giving up density test (GUD) to analyze the effect of
 anti-predator training on the robins’ vigilance/risk-analysis behaviors,
 patch choice, and the GUD of food left behind after one foraging session.
 Robins moved and foraged freely between three foraging patches of
 differing predation risk before and after a hawk silhouette was presented
 for one minute. Results indicate that after anti-predator training, robins
 displayed increased vigilance across most foraging patches and better
 foraging efficiency (higher vigilance and latency to forage with
 simultaneous lower GUD) in the safest patch. These results can have
 positive survival implications post-release, however, more research on
 this training is needed because anti-predator training has the potential
 to elicit indiscriminate increased vigilance to the detriment of foraging
 gains. Further research is required to standardize GUD's application
 in translocation programs with multigenerational captive-bred animals to
 fully comprehend its effectiveness in identifying and correcting
 maladaptive behaviors. GUD tests combined with behavioral analysis should
 be used by conservation translocation managers to examine the need for
 anti-predator and foraging trainings, the effects of trainings, and a
 group’s suitability for release.
description: # Captive birds exhibit greater foraging efficiency and vigilance after
 anti-predator training Descriptions of data in each column are below. Time
 is measured in seconds. numer ID – individual bird number safe_before –
 time spent in a safe zone before treatment mid_before – time spent in
 mid-zone before treatment dang_before – time spent in the danger zone
 before treatment safe_after – time spent in a safe zone after treatment
 mid_after – time spent in mid zone after treatment dang_after – time spent
 in danger zone after treatment TotVig1_before – total vigilance at scan 1
 before treatment TotVig2_before – total vigilance at scan 2 before
 treatment TotVig3_before – total vigilance at scan 3 before treatment
 TV1_after - total vigilance at scan 1 after treatment TV2_after - total
 vigilance at scan 2 after treatment TV3_after - total vigilance at scan 3
 after treatment TF1_b – time foraging at scan 1 before treatment TF2_b –
 time foraging at scan 2 before treatment TF3_b – time foraging at scan 3
 before treatment TF1_a – time foraging at scan 1 after treatment TF2_a –
 time foraging at scan 2 after treatment TF3_a – time foraging at scan 3
 after treatment scan1_b – time bird spent scanning at time 1 before
 treatment scan2_b – time bird spent scanning at time 2 before treatment
 scan3_b – time bird spent scanning at time 3 before treatment scan1_a –
 time bird spent scanning at time 1 after treatment scan2_a – time bird
 spent scanning at time 2 after treatment scan3_a – time bird spent
 scanning at time 3 after before treatment sky1_b  – time bird spent
 skygazing at time 1 before treatment sky2_b – time bird spent skygazing at
 time 2 before treatment sky3_b – time bird spent skygazing at time 3
 before treatment sky1_a – time bird spent skygazing at time 1 after
 treatment sky2_a – time bird spent skygazing at time 2 after treatment
 sky3_a – time bird spent skygazing at time 3 after treatment relax1_b –
 time bird spent relaxed at time 1 before treatment relax2_b – time bird
 spent relaxed at time 2 before treatment relax3_b – time bird spent
 relaxed at time 3 before treatment relax1_a – time bird spent relaxed at
 time 1 after treatment relax2_a – time bird spent relaxed at time 2 after
 treatment relax3_a – time bird spent relaxed at time 3 after treatment
 eat1_b – time bird spent eating at time 1 before treatment eat2_b – time
 bird spent eating at time 2 before treatment eat3_b – time bird spent
 eating at time 3 before treatment eat1_a – time bird spent eating at time
 1 after treatment eat2_a – time bird spent eating at time 2 after
 treatment eat3_a – time bird spent eating at time 3 after treatment fly_b
 – time bird spent flying before treatment fly_a – time bird spent flying
 after treatment