EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Foraging guild influences dependence on heterospecific alarm calls in Amazonian bird flocks


Behavioral Ecology 23(3): 544-550
Foraging guild influences dependence on heterospecific alarm calls in Amazonian bird flocks
Interspecific eavesdropping on alarm calling has been considered evidence that species participating in mixed-species groups benefit from reduced risk of predation. Few studies, however, have examined interspecific variation in dependence on and ability to evaluate alarm signals in mixed-species groups. We conducted a playback experiment to evaluate how species in different foraging guilds varied in their response to alarm calls of birds that lead Amazonian mixed-species flocks in both upland and inundated forests. We predicted that species that search nearby substrates myopically would react more strongly to alarm calls (i.e., take longer to resume foraging) than flycatching species that search for insects at a greater distance from a perch. We used likelihood functions to model the latency response to resume foraging for both upland and inundated forests samples, and we were able to detect significant differences among different foraging guilds. Our results indicate that flycatching birds respond weakest in both forest types, but contrary to our predictions, live-leaf gleaners showed a stronger response to alarms than dead-leaf–gleaning insectivores in inundated forest and no difference in upland forest. These results suggest that foraging guild may underlie different levels of dependence on public versus private information and, thus, the dependence of different species on heterospecific informants. These different levels of dependence on alarm calls provide a potential mechanistic basis for understanding assembly rules of flocks.


Accession: 036374923

DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr222



Related references

Response to conspecific and heterospecific alarm calls in mixed-species bird flocks of a Sri Lankan rainforest. Behavioral Ecology 19.4 (July-August): 887-894, 2008

Assessing false alarm calls by a drongo Dicrurus paradiseus in mixed-species bird flocks. Behavioral Ecology 21.2 (March-April): 396-403, 2010

Eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: from mechanisms to consequences. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 90(2): 560-586, 2016

The response of tree squirrels to conspecific and heterospecific alarm calls. Ploger, Bonnie J [Editor, Reprint Author], Yasukawa, Ken [Editor] Exploring animal behavior in laboratory and field: An hypothesis-testing approach to the development, causation, function, and evolution of animal behavior : 295-300, 2003

Learning to listen? Nestling response to heterospecific alarm calls. Animal Behaviour 84(6): 1401-1410, 2012

Wild birds learn to eavesdrop on heterospecific alarm calls. Current Biology 25(15): 2047-2050, 2016

Eavesdropping on the neighbours fledglings learn to respond to heterospecific alarm calls. Animal Behaviour 85(2): 411-418, 2013

Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(13): 5479-5482, 2007

Sound familiar? Acoustic similarity provokes responses to unfamiliar heterospecific alarm calls. Behavioral Ecology 22(2): 401-410, 2011

Alarming features: birds use specific acoustic properties to identify heterospecific alarm calls. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 280(1754): 20122539-20122539, 2013