The effect of mobbing vocalizations on risk perception in common mynas ( Acridotheres tristis)
- PDF / 1,000,141 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 161 Views
ARTICLE
The effect of mobbing vocalizations on risk perception in common mynas (Acridotheres tristis) Tom Condon1 · Abbas Hakim1 · Antonio B. Zenteno Moran1 · Daniel T. Blumstein1 Received: 28 June 2020 / Accepted: 9 September 2020 © Japan Ethological Society 2020
Abstract Animals emit predator-elicited calls in response to potential predation threats. These vocalizations induce a variety of antipredator behaviors in conspecific receivers ranging from moving away from predators (alarm calls) to rallying conspecifics to fend them off (mobbing calls). While much is known about the immediate response to alarm calls, less is known about how mobbing calls influence subsequent antipredator decisions. Mobbing calls stimulate harassment of a potential predator. Therefore we predicted that hearing a mobbing call would make animals less likely to immediately flee an approaching threat. To study the potential effect of mobbing vocalizations on risk assessment, we primed common mynas (Acridotheres tristis) with a series of different stimuli and studied the variation in their subsequent decisions to flee an approaching human by quantifying flight initiation distance (FID). We found that although mynas increased their rate of locomotion after hearing mobbing calls, their subsequent decision to flee was not influenced. We also found that an individual’s propensity to move and look explained some variation in FID. This suggests that while mobbing calls do not influence subsequent decisions to flee, they do affect subsequent behavior. Keywords Acridotheres tristis · Anti-predator behavior · Common myna · Flight initiation distance · Mobbing calls · Risk assessment
Introduction Predation is an important driver of evolution, creating novel morphological and behavioral antipredator defenses (Caro 2005). Predator–prey interactions are complex and often involve multiple steps (Endler et al. 1986). Behavioral decisions may depend on whether the predator or prey detect the other first. This order of detection influences subsequent decisions about whether to attack, flee, or ignore the other species (Lima and Dill 1990). Prey may face serious consequences for not properly assessing risk. In response to predation, prey may approach the predator in an attempt to drive it off, allowing them to continue foraging (Lima and Dill 1990) Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-020-00677-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Daniel T. Blumstein [email protected] 1
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, 621 Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095‑1606, USA
or retreat at the cost of lost foraging opportunities (Ydenberg and Dill 1986). Prey must weigh the costs and benefits of approaching or retreating from predators when deciding how to react (Ydenberg and Dill 1986; Blumstein et al. 2015). Risk assessment is dynamic and prey must continually monitor the situation to account for new information in their
Data Loading...
