Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 11, pp 1825–1835 | Cite as

Male baboon responses to experimental manipulations of loud “wahoo calls”: testing an honest signal of fighting ability

  • D. M. KitchenEmail author
  • D. L. Cheney
  • A. L. Engh
  • J. Fischer
  • L. R. Moscovice
  • R. M. Seyfarth
Original Paper


Among male chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus), rank positions in the dominance hierarchy are fiercely contested. Physical fighting is costly but relatively rare in this species. Instead, disputes are frequently resolved using displays that include loud, repetitive “wahoo” (two-syllable bark) vocalizations. We previously found that males of all ranks adjust their contest behavior based on the relative fighting ability of opponents and that length of the second syllable (“hoo” duration), calling rate, and fundamental frequency reliably indicate fighting ability. To test whether males indeed attend to hoo duration when assessing opponents, we designed two sets of playback experiments in which call sequence pairs were identical except for this single modified feature. In experiment 1, we used calls recorded from high-ranking males unfamiliar to all subjects. In experiment 2, callers were familiar rivals that ranked one position below subjects in the dominance hierarchy. In paired analyses, subjects in both experiments responded more strongly to sequences with more intense signal features (most commonly associated with high-quality males) compared to sequences with relatively less exaggerated features (most often associated with low-quality males). Results suggest that males can use acoustic features to both indirectly evaluate strangers and to monitor the changing condition of those rivals that present the biggest intragroup threat to their position in the dominance hierarchy. Taken together with our previous research, baboons appear to follow a classic assessor strategy—signal features related to rank and condition are salient to males and directly affect their propensity to respond to rivals.


Acoustic communication Assessor strategy Game theory Intrasexual competition Papio Playback experiments 



We are grateful to the Office of the President of the Republic of Botswana and the Botswana Department of Wildlife and National Parks for permission to conduct this research. J. Nicholson provided invaluable logistical support, insights into methods, and assistance with data collection. A. Mokupi, R. Hoffmeier, M. Heesen, W. Smith, and C. Shaw also provided generous assistance in the field. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful feedback. We are grateful to I. Clark and the staff at Eagle Island Camp and Game Trackers for their friendship and support. Research was supported by the University of Pennsylvania, The Ohio State University, and a National Institutes of Health Grant (#MH62249).

Ethical standards

This research adhered to the Animal Behavior Society's Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research, the legal requirements of Republic of Botswana, and all institutional guidelines.


  1. Arak A (1983) Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature 306:261–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bee MA (2002) Territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) do not assess fighting ability based on size-related variation in acoustic signals. Behav Ecol 13:109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bee MA (2003) A test of the ‘dear-enemy effect’ in the strawberry dart-poison frog (Dendrobates pumillio). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001) Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): II. perceptual basis. Anim Behav 62:1141–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC (1999) Size assessment in simulated territorial encounters between male green frogs (Rana clamitans). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beecher MD, Stoddard PK, Campbell SE, Horning CL (1996) Repertoire matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Anim Behav 51:917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beehner JC, Bergman TJ, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Whitten PL (2005) The effect of new alpha males on female stress in free-ranging baboons. Anim Behav 69:1211–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behr O, Knörnschild M, von Helversen O (2009) Territorial counter-singing in male sac-winged bats (Saccopteryx bilineata): low-frequency songs trigger a stronger response. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergman TJ (2010) Experimental evidence for limited vocal recognition in a wild primate: implications for the social complexity hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:3045–3053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergman TJ, Beehner JC, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Whitten PL (2006) Interactions in male baboons: the importance of both males' testosterone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:480–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Bro-Jørgensen J, Dabelsteen T (2008) Knee-clicks and visual traits indicate fighting ability in eland antelopes: multiple messages and back-up signals. BMC Biol 6:47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bulger J (1993) Dominance rank and access to estrous females in male savanna baboons. Behaviour 124:89–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burmeister SS, Ophir AG, Ryan MJ, Wilcynski W (2002) Information transfer during cricket frog contests. Anim Behav 64:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt JM, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2001) Song type matching as threat: a test using interactive playback. Anim Behav 62:1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cardoso GC, Atwell JW, Ketterson ED, Price TD (2007) Inferring performance in the songs of dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol 18:1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charrier I, Ahonen H, Harcourt RG (2011) What makes an Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) male's bark threatening? J Comp Psychol 125:385–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2007) Baboon metaphysics the evolution of a social mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Silk JB (1995) The role of grunts in reconciling opponents and facilitating interactions among adult female baboons. Anim Behav 52:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christie PJ, Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Pitch shifts and song structure indicate male quality in the dawn chorus of blackcapped chickadees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD (1979) The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour 69:145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE (1979) The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim Behav 27:211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cowlishaw G, Dunbar RIM (1991) Dominance rank and mating success in male primates. Anim Behav 41:1045–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crockford C, Wittig RM, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2007) Baboons eavesdrop to deduce mating opportunities. Anim Behav 73:885–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB (1990) Song and information about aggressive responses of blackbirds, Turdus merula: evidence from interactive playback experiments with territory owners. Anim Behav 40:1158–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davies NB, Halliday TR (1978) Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads (Bufo bufo). Nature 274:683–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Enquist M, Leimar O (1983) Evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J Theor Biol 102:387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ey E, Hammerschmidt K, Seyfarth RM, Fischer J (2007) Age- and sex-related variations in clear calls of Papio ursinus. Int J Primatol 28:947–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher J (1954) Evolution and bird sociality. In: Huxley J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, pp 84–98Google Scholar
  30. Fischer J, Hammerschmidt K, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2002) Acoustic features of male baboon loud calls: influences of context, age, and individuality. J Acoust Soc Am 111:1465–1474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fischer J, Kitchen DM, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2004) Baboon loud calls advertise male quality: acoustic features and their relation to rank, age, and exhaustion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fischer J, Noser R, Hammerschmidt K (2013) Bioacoustic field research: a primer to acoustic analyses and playback experiments with primates. Am J Primatol 75:643–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Furlow B, Kimball RT, Marshall MC (1998) Are rooster crows honest signals of fighting ability? Auk 115:763–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galeotti P, Saino N, Sacchi R, Møller AP (1997) Song correlates with social context, testosterone and body condition in male barn swallows. Anim Behav 53:687–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Given MF (1987) Vocalizations and acoustic interactions of the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes. Herpetologica 43:467–481Google Scholar
  36. Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hamilton WJ, Bulger JB (1990) Natal male baboon rank rises and successful challenges to resident alpha males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hamilton WJ, Buskirk RE, Buskirk WH (1976) Defense of space and resources by chacma (Papio ursinus) baboon troops in an African desert and swamp. Ecology 57:1264–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris TR (2006) Within- and among-male variation in roaring by black and white Colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza): what does it reveal about function? Behaviour 143:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harris TR, Fitch WT, Goldstein LM, Fashing PJ (2006) Black and white colobus monkey (Colobus guereza) roars as a source of both honest and exaggerated information about body mass. Ethology 112:911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kitchen DM, Beehner JC (2007) Factors affecting individual participation in group-level aggression in non-human primates. Behaviour 144:1551–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kitchen DM, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2003a) Female baboons' responses to male loud calls. Ethology 109:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitchen DM, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2004) Factors mediating inter-group encounters in chacma baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus). Behaviour 141:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kitchen DM, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2005a) Contextual factors mediating contests between male chacma baboons in Botswana: effects of food, friends and females. Int J Primatol 26:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kitchen DM, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2005b) Male chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) discriminate loud call contests between rivals of different relative ranks. Anim Cogn 8:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kitchen DM, Seyfarth RM, Fischer J, Cheney DL (2003b) Loud calls as an indicator of dominance in male baboons, Papio cynocephalus ursinus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:374–384Google Scholar
  47. Krebs JR, Ashcroft R, Webber M (1978) Song repertoires and territory defence in the great tit. Nature 271:539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kroodsma DE, Byers BE, Goodale E, Johnson S, Liu W-C (2001) Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. Anim Behav 61:1029–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leonard ML, Horn AG (1995) Crowing in relation to status in roosters. Anim Behav 49:1283–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mager JM, Walcott C, Piper WH (2007) Male common loons, Gavia immer, communicate body mass and condition through dominant frequencies of territorial yodels. Anim Behav 73:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:208–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McGregor PK (1992) Quantifying responses to playback: one, many, or composite multivariate measures? In: McGregor PK (ed) Playback and studies of animal communication. Plenum Press, New York, pp 79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Do male black-capped chickadees eavesdrop on song contests? A multi-speaker playback experiment. Behaviour 141:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moscovice LR, Di Fiore A, Crockford C, Kitchen DM, Wittig R, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2010) Hedging their bets? Male and female chacma baboons form friendships based on likelihood of paternity. Anim Behav 79:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nunn CL (2000) Collective benefits, free-riders, and male extra-group conflict. In: Kappeler P (ed) Primate males: causes and consequences of variation in group composition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–204Google Scholar
  57. Otter K, Chruszcz B, Ratcliffe L (1997) Honest advertisement and song output during the dawn chorus of black-capped chickadees. Behav Ecol 8:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palombit RA, Cheney DL, Fischer J, Johnson S, Rendall D, Seyfarth RM, Silk JB (2000) Male infanticide and defense of infants in wild chacma baboons. In: van Schaik CP, Janson CH (eds) Infanticide by males and its implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parker GA, Rubenstein DI (1981) Role assessment, reserve strategy, and acquisition of information in asymmetric animal conflicts. Anim Behav 29:221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Payne RJH, Pagel M (1997) Why do animals repeat displays? Anim Behav 54:109–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Poole JH (1989) Announcing intent: the aggressive state of musth in African elephants. Anim Behav 37:140–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Poole JH (1999) Signals and assessment in African elephants: evidence from playback experiments. Anim Behav 58:185–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Price JJ, Earnshaw SM, Webster MS (2005) Montezuma oropendolas modify a component of song constrained by body size during vocal contests. Anim Behav 71:799–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reby D, McComb K (2003) Anatomical constraints generate honesty: acoustic cues to age and weight in the roars of red deer stags. Anim Behav 65:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reby D, McComb K, Cargnelutti B, Darwin C, Fitch WT, Clutton-Brock T (2005) Red deer stags use formants as assessment cues during intrasexual agonistic interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:941–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rehsteiner U, Geisser H, Reyer H-U (1998) Singing and mating success in water pipits: one specific song element makes all the difference. Anim Behav 55:1471–1481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA (1985) The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. Am Nat 126:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanvito S, Galimbert F, Miller EH (2007) Vocal signalling of male southern elephant seals is honest but imprecise. Anim Behav 73:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schrader L, Hammerschmidt K (1997) Computer-aided analysis of acoustic parameters in animal vocalizations: a multi-parametric approach. Bioacoustics 7:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shackelton SA, Ratcliffe L (1994) Matched counter-singing signals escalation of aggression in black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Ethology 97:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C (1997) Stronger territorial responses to frequency modulated coos in collared doves. Anim Behav 54:955–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith KS (1986) Dominance and mating strategies of chacma baboons Papio ursinus in the Okavango Delta. Dissertation University of California Davis, BotswanaGoogle Scholar
  74. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Steenbeek R, Assink P, Wich SA (1999) Tenure related changes in wild Thomas's langurs II: loud calls. Behaviour 136:627–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taylor AM, Reby D, McComb K (2011) Cross modal perception of body size in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). PLoS One 6:e17069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tripovich JS, Charrier I, Rogers TL, Canfield R, Arnould JPY (2008) Acoustic features involved in the neighbour–stranger vocal recognition process in male Australian fur seals. Behav Process 79:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vehrencamp S (2000) Handicap, index, and conventional elements of bird song. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir Publishers, Trondheim, Norway, pp 277–300Google Scholar
  79. Wagner RE (1989) Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in Blanchard's cricket frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weingrill T, Lycett JE, Henzi SP (2000) Consortship and mating success in chacma baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus). Ethology 106:1033–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wiley RH (2003) Is there an ideal behavioural experiment? An Behav 66:585–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wyman MT, Mooring MS, McCowan B, Penedo MCT, Hart LA (2008) Amplitude of bison bellows reflects male quality, physical condition and motivation. Anim Behav 76:1625–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yasukawa K, Blank JL, Patterson CB (1980) Song repertoires and sexual selection in the red-winged blackbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Kitchen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • D. L. Cheney
    • 3
  • A. L. Engh
    • 3
  • J. Fischer
    • 4
  • L. R. Moscovice
    • 5
  • R. M. Seyfarth
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyThe Ohio State UniversityMansfieldUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Cognitive Ethology LaboratoryGerman Primate CenterGötttingenGermany
  5. 5.Department of PrimatologyMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany
  6. 6.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations