Interspecific signalling between mutualists: food-thieving drongos use a cooperative sentinel call to manipulate foraging partners

Interspecific communication is common in nature, particularly between mutualists. However, whether signals evolved for communication with other species, or are in fact conspecific signals eavesdropped upon by partners, is often unclear. Fork-tailed drongos (Dicrurus adsimilis) associate with mixed-species groups and often produce true alarms at predators, whereupon associating species flee to cover, but also false alarms to steal associating species'' food (kleptoparasitism). Despite such deception, associating species respond to drongo non-alarm calls by increasing their foraging and decreasing vigilance. Yet, whether these calls represent interspecific sentinel signals remains unknown. We show that drongos produced a specific sentinel call when foraging with a common associate, the sociable weaver (Philetairus socius), but not when alone. Weavers increased their foraging and decreased vigilance when naturally associating with drongos, and in response to sentinel call playback. Further, drongos sentinel-called more often when weavers were moving, and weavers approached sentinel calls, suggesting a recruitment function. Finally, drongos sentinel-called when weavers fled following false alarms, thereby reducing disruption to weaver foraging time. Results therefore provide evidence of an ‘all clear’ signal that mitigates the cost of inaccurate communication. Our results suggest that drongos enhance exploitation of a foraging mutualist through coevolution of interspecific sentinel signals.     

Context-dependent vocal mimicry in a passerine bird

How do birds select the sounds they mimic, and in what contexts do they use vocal mimicry? Some birds show a preference for mimicking other species' alarm notes, especially in situations when they appear to be alarmed. Yet no study has demonstrated that birds change the call types they mimic with changing contexts. We found that greater racket-tailed drongos (Dicrurus paradiseus) in the rainforest of Sri Lanka mimic the calls of predators and the alarm-associated calls of other species more often than would be expected from the frequency of these sounds in the acoustic environment. Drongos include this alarm-associated mimicry in their own alarm vocalizations, while incorporating other species' songs and contact calls in their own songs. Drongos show an additional level of context specificity by mimicking other species' ground predator-specific call types when mobbing. We suggest that drongos learn other species' calls and their contexts while interacting with these species in mixed flocks. The drongos' behaviour demonstrates that alarm-associated calls can have learned components, and that birds can learn the appropriate usage of calls that encode different types of information.     

Crying wolf to a predator: deceptive vocal mimicry by a bird protecting young

Animals often mimic dangerous or toxic species to deter predators; however, mimicry of such species may not always be possible and mimicry of benign species seems unlikely to confer anti-predator benefits. We reveal a system in which a bird mimics the alarm calls of harmless species to fool a predator 40 times its size and protect its offspring against attack. Our experiments revealed that brown thornbills (Acanthiza pusilla) mimic a chorus of other species'' aerial alarm calls, a cue of an Accipiter hawk in flight, when predators attack their nest. The absence of any flying predators in this context implies that these alarms convey deceptive information about the type of danger present. Experiments on the primary nest predators of thornbills, pied currawongs (Strepera graculina), revealed that the predators treat these alarms as if they themselves are threatened by flying hawks, either by scanning the sky for danger or fleeing, confirming a deceptive function. In turn, these distractions delay attack and provide thornbill nestlings with an opportunity to escape. This sophisticated defence strategy exploits the complex web of interactions among multiple species across several trophic levels, and in particular exploits a predator''s ability to eavesdrop on and respond appropriately to heterospecific alarm calls. Our findings demonstrate that prey can fool predators by deceptively mimicking alarm calls of harmless species, suggesting that defensive mimicry could be more widespread because of indirect effects on predators within a web of eavesdropping.     

Vocal Mimicry of Alarm‐Associated Sounds by a Drongo Elicits Flee and Mobbing Responses from Other Species that Participate in Mixed‐Species Bird Flocks

A growing number of studies have shown that vocal mimicry appears to be adaptive for some bird species, although the exact function of this behaviour varies among species. Previous work has looked at the function of the vocal mimicry of non‐alarm sounds by the Greater Racket‐tailed Drongo (Dicurus paradiseus). But drongos also imitate sounds associated with danger, such as predators' vocalisations or the mobbing‐specific vocalisations of other prey species, raising the question of whether the function of mimicry can vary even within a species. In a playback experiment, we compared the effect on other species of different drongo vocalisations including: (1) predator mimicry, (2) mobbing mimicry, (3) drongo species‐specific alarms, (4) drongo species‐specific non‐alarms and (5) a control (barbet) sound. Both mobbing mimicry and drongo species‐specific alarms elicited flee responses from the most numerous species in the flocks, the Orange‐billed Babbler (Turdoides rufescens). Mobbing mimicry also elicited mobbing responses from the Orange‐billed Babbler and from another gregarious babbler, the Ashy‐headed Laughingthrush (Garrulax cinereifrons); when responses from both species were considered together, they were elicited at a significantly higher level by mobbing mimicry than by the barbet control, and a level that tended to be higher (0.07 < p < 0.10) than the response to drongo‐specific alarms. Predator mimicry elicited flee and mobbing responses at an intermediary level. Our results support the hypotheses that mobbing mimicry is a specific category of mimicry that helps attract the aid of heterospecifics during mobbing and that alarm mimicry can in some cases be beneficial to the caller.     

Interspecific audience effects on the alarm-calling behaviour of a kleptoparasitic bird

Audience effects are increasingly recognized as an important aspect of intraspecific communication. Yet despite the common occurrence of interspecific interactions and considerable evidence that individuals respond to the calls of heterospecifics, empirical evidence for interspecific audience effects on signalling behaviour is lacking. Here we present evidence of an interspecific audience effect on the alarm-calling behaviour of the kleptoparasitic fork-tailed drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis). When foraging solitarily, drongos regularly alarm at aerial predators, but rarely alarm at terrestrial predators. In contrast, when drongos are following terrestrially foraging pied babblers (Turdoides bicolor) for kleptoparasitic opportunities, they consistently give alarm calls to both aerial and terrestrial predators. This change occurs despite no difference in the amount of time that drongos spend foraging terrestrially. Babblers respond to drongo alarm calls by fleeing to cover, providing drongos with opportunities to steal babbler food items by occasionally giving false alarm calls. This provides an example of an interspecific audience effect on alarm-calling behaviour that may be explained by the benefits received from audience response.     

Facultative response to a kleptoparasite by the cooperatively breeding pied babbler

In many cases of interspecific kleptoparasitism, hosts developdefensive behaviors to minimize the impact of kleptoparasites.Because vigilance and defensive behaviors are often costly,selection should favor hosts that adjust the amount of investmentneeded to minimize losses to kleptoparasitism. However, examplesof such facultative responses are rare. Here, we investigatethe response of cooperatively breeding pied babblers (Turdoidesbicolor) to the drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis), an avian kleptoparasitethat regularly follows pied babbler groups, often giving alarmcalls to alert the group to predators but also occasionallygiving false alarm calls in order to steal food items. We showthat pied babbler response to drongos varies markedly accordingto babbler group size. In small groups, where there are fewindividuals available to act as sentinels, babblers sentinelless when a drongo is present and respond strongly to drongoalarm calls. However, in large groups, where there are manyindividuals available to participate in predator vigilance,babblers sentinel more often when a drongo is present, rarelyrespond to drongo alarm calls, and aggressively displace drongos,with a consequent decline in the number of successful kleptoparasitismevents. This behavior represent a facultative response to akleptoparasite according to the costs versus benefits of toleratingtheir presence.     

Monkeys crying wolf? Tufted capuchin monkeys use anti-predator calls to usurp resources from conspecifics

The use of ‘tactical deception’ is argued to have been important in the cognitive evolution of the order Primates, but systematic studies of active deception in wild non-human primates are scant. This study tests whether wild tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella nigritus) use alarm calls in a functionally deceptive manner to usurp food resources. If capuchins use alarm calls ‘deceptively’, it was predicted that false alarms should be: (i) given by subordinates more than by dominants, (ii) more frequent when food is most contestable, (iii) more frequent when less food is available, and (iv) given when the caller is in a spatial position in which it could increase its feeding success if conspecifics react to the call. These predictions were tested by observing subjects in experimental contexts, in which the amount and distribution of a high-value resource (banana pieces) were manipulated using wooden platforms suspended from tree branches. While false alarms were non-significantly more common when more food was available, the three remaining predictions were supported. These results generally support the hypothesis that alarm calls are used by capuchins to reduce the effects of feeding competition. Whether this is intentional on the part of the caller requires further investigation.     

Singing for your supper: sentinel calling by kleptoparasites can mitigate the cost to victims

Parasitism generally imposes costs on victims, yet many victims appear to tolerate their parasites. We suggest that in some cases this may be because parasites provide victims with mitigating benefits, paradoxically giving rise to selection for advertisement rather than concealment by parasites. We investigate this possibility using the interaction between an avian kleptoparasite, the fork-tailed drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis), and one of its victims, the pied babbler (Turdoides bicolor). Combining field observations and a playback experiment, we demonstrate that a conspicuous vocal signal broadcast by drongos perched waiting to steal food from foraging babblers allows the latter to improve their own foraging efficiency, although not to the same extent as that experienced in response to conspecific sentinel calling. We argue that "sentinel" calling by drongos may originally have arisen as a means of manipulating babblers: because babblers find more food items and venture into the open more in response to these vocalizations, drongos are presented with more kleptoparasitism opportunities. However, the resulting benefit to babblers could be sufficient to reduce selection for the evolution of defenses against drongos, and the current situation may represent a rare example of an interspecific relationship in transition from a parasitism to a mutualism.     

Decrease in Alarm Call Response Among Tufted Capuchins in Competitive Feeding Contexts: Possible Evidence for Counterdeception

Animal signals function to elicit behaviors in receivers that ultimately benefit the signaler, while receivers should respond in a way that maximizes their own fitness. However, the best response may be difficult for receivers to determine when unreliable signaling is common. “Deceptive” alarm calling is common among tufted capuchins (Cebus apella nigritus) in competitive feeding contexts, and responding to these calls is costly. Receivers should thus vary their responses based on whether a call is likely to be reliable. If capuchins are indeed able to assess reliability, I predicted that receivers will be less likely to respond to alarms that are given during competitive feeding contexts than in noncompetitive contexts, and, within feeding contexts, that individuals inside or adjacent to a food patch will be less likely to respond to alarms than those further from the resource. I tested these predictions in a group of wild capuchins by observing the reactions of focal animals to alarm calls in both noncompetitive contexts and experimental feeding contexts. Antipredator escape reactions, but not vigilance reactions, occurred significantly less often in competitive feeding contexts than in noncompetitive contexts and individuals adjacent to food patches were more likely to respond to alarm calls than were those inside or further from food patches. Although not all predictions were fully supported, the findings demonstrate that receivers vary their behavior in a way that minimizes the costs associated with “deceptive” alarms, but further research is needed to determine whether or not this can be attributed to counterdeception.     

A ‘crying wolf’ game of interspecific kleptoparasitic mutualism

We model a potentially mutualistic interaction between a species making antipredator alarm calls and a species which eavesdrops on those calls. Callers may or may not make deceptive alarm calls in order to kleptoparasitize food from eavesdroppers, which in turn may either heed or ignore all alarm calls. The two most likely outcomes in our model are either maximally deceptive callers and maximally trusting eavesdroppers, or persistently cycling strategy frequencies. The latter is favoured by low predator density, low density of any alternative honest alarm-calling species, ability of eavesdroppers to preferentially heed calls when costs of doing so are low and, in some cases, low food availability.     

Vocal mimicry in spotted bowerbirds is associated with an alarming context

Although the presence of vocal mimicry in songbirds is well documented, the function of such impressive copying is poorly understood. One explanation for mimicry in species that predominantly mimic alarm calls and predator vocal isations is that these birds use mimicry to confuse or deter potential threats or intruders, so these vocalisations should therefore be produced when the mimic is alarmed and be uncommon in other contexts. Male bowerbirds construct bowers to display to females and anecdotal reports from the Ptilonorhynchus genus suggest that males mimic alarm sounds when disturbed at their bowers. We quantified and compared the rate of mimicry during disturbance to the bower by a human and in naturally occurring social contexts in a population of spotted bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus maculatus. Male bowerbirds produced mimicry more than thirty times more frequently in response to bower disturbance than they did in any other context. Neither conspecifics nor heterospecifics were attracted to the bower area by mimicry. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that the production of mimicry is associated with a response to an alarming situation. Additionally, the predominance of alarm mimicry by spotted bowerbirds raises the possibility that the birds learn these sounds when they experience alarming situations and they reproduce them in subsequent alarming situations.     

Female preferences drive the evolution of mimetic accuracy in male sexual displays

Males in many bird species mimic the vocalizations of other species during sexual displays, but the evolutionary and functional significance of interspecific vocal mimicry is unclear. Here we use spectrographic cross-correlation to compare mimetic calls produced by male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus) in courtship with calls from several model species. We show that the accuracy of vocal mimicry and the number of model species mimicked are both independently related to male mating success. Multivariate analyses revealed that these mimetic traits were better predictors of male mating success than other male display traits previously shown to be important for male mating success. We suggest that preference-driven mimetic accuracy may be a widespread occurrence, and that mimetic accuracy may provide females with important information about male quality. Our findings support an alternative hypothesis to help explain a common element of male sexual displays.     

False alarms and information transmission in grouping animals

A key benefit of grouping in prey species is access to social information, including information about the presence of predators. Larger groups of prey animals respond both sooner and at greater distances from predators, increasing the likelihood that group members will successfully avoid capture. However, identifying predators in complex environments is a difficult task, and false alarms (alarm behaviours without genuine threat) appear surprisingly frequent across a range of taxa including insects, amphibians, fish, mammals, and birds. In some bird flocks, false alarms have been recorded to substantially outnumber true alarms. False alarms can be costly in terms of both the energetic costs of producing alarm behaviours as well as lost opportunity costs (e.g. abandoning a feeding patch which was in fact safe, losing sleep if an animal is resting/roosting, or losing mating opportunities). Models have shown that false alarms may be a substantial but underappreciated cost of group living, introducing an inherent risk to using social information and a vulnerability to the propagation of false information. This review will focus on false alarms, introducing a two-stage framework to categorise the different factors hypothesised to influence the propensity of animal groups to produce false alarms. A number of factors may affect false alarm rate, and this new framework splits these factors into two core processing stages: (i) individual perception and response; and (ii) group processing of predator information. In the first stage, individuals in the group monitor the environment for predator cues and respond. The factors highlighted in this stage influence the likelihood that an individual will misclassify stimuli and produce a false alarm (e.g. lower light levels can make predator identification more difficult and false alarms more common). In the second stage, alarm information from individuals is processed by the group. The factors highlighted in this stage influence the likelihood of alarm information being copied by group members and propagated through the group (e.g. some animals implement group processing mechanisms that regulate the spread of behavioural responses such as consensus decision making through the quorum response). This review follows the structure of this new framework, focussing on the causes of false alarms, factors that influence false alarm rate, the transmission of alarm information through animal groups, mechanisms to mitigate the spread of false alarms, and the consequences of false alarms.     

Functionally Referential Alarm Calls in Tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis and Saguinus mystax) – Evidence from Playback Experiments

Studies on primate vocalisation have revealed different types of alarm call systems ranging from graded signals based on response urgency to functionally referential alarm calls that elicit predator‐specific reactions. In addition, alarm call systems that include both highly specific and other more unspecific calls have been reported. There has been consistent discussion on the possible factors leading to the evolution of different alarm call systems, among which is the need of qualitatively different escape strategies. We studied the alarm calls of free‐ranging saddleback and moustached tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis and Saguinus mystax) in northeast Peru. Both species have predator‐specific alarm calls and show specific non‐vocal reactions. In response to aerial predators, they look upwards and quickly move downwards, while in response to terrestrial predators, they look downwards and sometimes approach the predator. We conducted playback experiments to test if the predator‐specific reactions could be elicited in the absence of the predator by the tamarins’ alarm calls alone. We found that in response to aerial alarm call playbacks the subjects looked significantly longer upwards, and in response to terrestrial alarm call playbacks they looked significantly longer downwards. Thus, the tamarins reacted as if external referents, i.e. information about the predator type or the appropriate reaction, were encoded in the acoustic features of the calls. In addition, we found no differences in the responses of S. fuscicollis and S. mystax whether the alarm call stimulus was produced by a conspecific or a heterospecific caller. Furthermore, it seems that S. fuscicollis terrestrial alarm calls were less specific than either S. mystax terrestrial predator alarms or either species’ aerial predator alarms, but because of the small sample size it is difficult to draw a final conclusion.     

A mutual understanding? Interspecific responses by birds to each other's aerial alarm calls

Individuals are likely to benefit from responding to the alarmsignals of other species with similar predators, and mutualinterspecific responses to aerial (hawk) alarms are thoughtto be common in birds, in part because similarity in alarm callstructure among species might facilitate detection or interpretation.However, there has been no test of whether interspecific responsesto aerial alarm calls can involve mutual responses between speciesand only incomplete tests of the response of any species tosuch heterospecific alarms. We describe the aerial alarm callsof white-browed scrubwrens (Sericornis frontalis) and superbfairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) and use a playback experimentto test for mutual responses to each other's aerial alarm calls.The 2 species occur in similar habitats and can co-occur inmixed-species flocks during the nonbreeding season. The aerialalarm calls of both species are high pitched (7 kHz) and rapidlyfrequency-modulated calls but are distinct in frequency measuresand only the scrubwren's call had 2 parallel sounds. Both speciesfled to cover after playback of either their own or the otherspecies' alarm calls but never to control sounds. The responseto either species' alarm was almost invariant in both speciesin an experiment at high natural amplitude, but there was aslightly lower response to heterospecific compared with conspecificalarms when playbacks were at the mean natural amplitude. Ourresults demonstrate, after at least 50 years of interest inthe subject, that there can be mutual responses to aerial alarmcalls between species.     

Vocal signals in a tropical avian species, the redvented bulbulPycnonotus cafer: their characteristics and importance

Acoustic signals play an important role in the lives of birds. Almost all avian species produce vocal signals in a variety of contexts either in the form of calls or songs or both. In the present study different types of vocal signals of the tropical avian speciesPycnonotus cafer were characterized on the basis of their physical characteristics and context of production. This species used six types of vocal signals: contact signals, roosting signals, alarm signals, twittering signals, distress signals and begging signals. Two types of alarm signals are produced based on predation pressure. These signals are dissimilar in all physical characteristics except for dominant frequency. Although alarm signal type I and roosting signals are phonetically similar, they have completely different sonogram characteristics.     

Acoustic structure of alarm calls in Indian sambar (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Rusa unicolor</Emphasis>) and Indian muntjac (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Muntiacus vaginalis</Emphasis>) in South Vietnam

The alarm call acoustic structure and nonlinear vocal phenomena of the Indian sambar (Rusa unicolor) and northern Indian muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis) have been analyzed in detail as well as their vocal behavior in response to mobbing humans under natural conditions of southern Vietnam. The alarm calls of sambars, tonal barks separated by large intervals, were produced by animals standing on the place and gazing at a potentially dangerous object. Muntjacs flee off in danger and produced a series of dull barks interrupted with short intervals from a distance. The alarm call frequencies were characterized for sambars and muntjacs. The results of our study have been compared with the published data on alarm calls of other Cervidae species.     

Avian vocal mimicry: a unified conceptual framework

Mimicry is a classical example of adaptive signal design. Here, we review the current state of research into vocal mimicry in birds. Avian vocal mimicry is a conspicuous and often spectacular form of animal communication, occurring in many distantly related species. However, the proximate and ultimate causes of vocal mimicry are poorly understood. In the first part of this review, we argue that progress has been impeded by conceptual confusion over what constitutes vocal mimicry. We propose a modified version of Vane‐Wright's (1980) widely used definition of mimicry. According to our definition, a vocalisation is mimetic if the behaviour of the receiver changes after perceiving the acoustic resemblance between the mimic and the model, and the behavioural change confers a selective advantage on the mimic. Mimicry is therefore specifically a functional concept where the resemblance between heterospecific sounds is a target of selection. It is distinct from other forms of vocal resemblance including those that are the result of chance or common ancestry, and those that have emerged as a by‐product of other processes such as ecological convergence and selection for large song‐type repertoires. Thus, our definition provides a general and functionally coherent framework for determining what constitutes vocal mimicry, and takes account of the diversity of vocalisations that incorporate heterospecific sounds. In the second part we assess and revise hypotheses for the evolution of avian vocal mimicry in the light of our new definition. Most of the current evidence is anecdotal, but the diverse contexts and acoustic structures of putative vocal mimicry suggest that mimicry has multiple functions across and within species. There is strong experimental evidence that vocal mimicry can be deceptive, and can facilitate parasitic interactions. There is also increasing support for the use of vocal mimicry in predator defence, although the mechanisms are unclear. Less progress has been made in explaining why many birds incorporate heterospecific sounds into their sexual displays, and in determining whether these vocalisations are functionally mimetic or by‐products of sexual selection for other traits such as repertoire size. Overall, this discussion reveals a more central role for vocal mimicry in the behavioural ecology of birds than has previously been appreciated. The final part of this review identifies important areas for future research. Detailed empirical data are needed on individual species, including on the structure of mimetic signals, the contexts in which mimicry is produced, how mimicry is acquired, and the ecological relationships between mimic, model and receiver. At present, there is little information and no consensus about the various costs of vocal mimicry for the protagonists in the mimicry complex. The diversity and complexity of vocal mimicry in birds raises important questions for the study of animal communication and challenges our view of the nature of mimicry itself. Therefore, a better understanding of avian vocal mimicry is essential if we are to account fully for the diversity of animal signals.     

Are vocal characteristics related to leadership patterns in mixed‐species bird flocks?

What structures the organization of mixed‐species bird flocks, so that some ‘nuclear’ species lead the flocks, and others follow? Previous research has shown that species actively listen to each other, and that leaders are gregarious; such gregarious species tend to make contact calls and hence may be vocally conspicuous. Here we investigated whether vocal characteristics are associated with leadership, using a global dataset of mixed‐species flock studies and recordings from sound archives. We first asked whether leaders are different from following or occasional species in flocks in the proportion of the recordings that contain calls (n = 58 flock studies, 145 species), and especially alarm calls (n = 111 species). We found that leaders tended to have a higher proportion of their vocalizations that were classified as calls than occasional species, and both leaders and following species had a significantly higher proportion of their calls rated as alarms compared to occasional species. Next, we investigated the acoustic characteristics of flock participants’ calls, hypothesizing that leaders would make more calls, and have less silence on the recordings. We also hypothesized that leaders’ calls would be simple acoustically, as contact calls tend to be, and thus similar to each other, as well as being detectable, in being low frequency and with high frequence bandwidth. The analysis (n = 45 species, 169 recordings) found that only one of these predictions was supported: leading species were less often silent than following or occasional species. Unexpectedly, leaders’ calls were less similar to each other than occasional species. The greater amount of information available and the greater variety of that information support the hypothesis that leadership in flocks is related to vocal communication. We highlight the use of sound archives to ask questions about behavioral and community ecology, while acknowledging some limitations of such studies.     

Anti-Predator Signals as Advertisements: Evidence in White-Throated Magpie-Jays

Calls and displays elicited by predators usually function as alarms or to inform predators of their detection. However, predator encounters may afford some individuals the opportunity to demonstrate quality or signal their availability. Here, I report on a class of vocal signals produced in predator-elicited displays that share many characteristics with sexually selected song. White-throated magpie-jays ( Calocitta formosa ) display at low-threat predators while producing 'loud display calls' (LDCs). I use this term because the calls occur primarily in two display contexts (see below) though occasionally in other contexts as well. Such calls and displays are primarily produced by males, and also occur in one other context, at dawn. Playback experiments showed that despite being elicited by predators, males were more likely than females to respond to LDCs, and more likely to respond when their mate was fertile. Over 134 different call types were produced in over 200 displays by 34 males; the largest minimum repertoire size was 67. Presentations of taxidermic raptor mounts elicited some LDCs, but fewer calls and lower diversity than at dawn or in predator approach displays. The male bias and high diversity suggest that LDCs are an outcome of intersexual selection, while their elicitation by predators suggests an alarm function. I propose that male magpie-jays use predator encounters as opportunities to advertise their presence and availability as mates; they use LDCs as songs. Such a communication system seems to have been favored by the unusual social system of magpie-jays, in which female groups defend territories and males have little opportunity to defend resources for mate attraction, forcing them to advertise when females are paying the most attention, during predator encounters.