Comparing responses of four ungulate species to playbacks of baboon alarm calls
A growing body of evidence suggests that a wide range of animals can recognize and respond appropriately to calls produced by other species. Social learning has been implicated as a possible mechanism by which heterospecific call recognition might develop. To examine whether familiarity and/or shared vulnerability with the calling species might influence the ability of sympatric species to distinguish heterospecific alarm calls, we tested whether four ungulate species (impala: Aepyceros melampus; tsessebe: Damaliscus lunatus; zebra: Equus burchelli; wildebeest: Connochaetes taurinus) could distinguish baboon (Papio hamadryas ursinus) alarm calls from other loud baboon calls produced during intra-specific aggressive interactions (‘contest’ calls). Overall, subjects’ responses were stronger following playback of alarm calls than contest calls. Of the species tested, impala showed the strongest responses and the greatest difference in composite response scores, suggesting they were best able to differentiate call types. Compared with the other ungulate species, impala are the most frequent associates of baboons. Moreover, like baboons, they are susceptible to both lion and leopard attacks, whereas leopards rarely take the larger ungulates. Although it seems possible that high rates of association and/or shared vulnerability may influence impala’s greater ability to distinguish among baboon call types, our results point to a stronger influence of familiarity. Ours is the first study to compare such abilities among several community members with variable natural histories, and we discuss future experiments that would more systematically examine development of these skills in young ungulates.
KeywordsHeterospecific alarm calls Baboon Impala Tsessebe Wildebeest Zebra
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. We thank J. Beehner, A. Mokupi, M. Mokupi, J. Rawle, C. McAllister and M. McAllister for support and assistance in the field, and four anonymous reviewers for suggestions. We are grateful to W. Smith, C. Shaw, I. Clark and the staff at Eagle Island Camp for use of vehicles and for friendship. Research was supported by National Science Foundation grant IBN 9514001, National Institute of Health Grant MH62249, The Leakey Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania, and The Ohio State University. This research adhered to the Animal Behavior Society Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research, the legal requirements of Republic of Botswana, and institutional guidelines.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Busse C (1982) Leopard and lion predation upon chacma baboons living in the Moremi Wildlife Reserve. Botswana Notes Rec 12:15–21Google Scholar
- Coe R (2000) Effect size calculator. Durham University, Durham. Available via http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30325015. Accessed 9 Sept 2009
- Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- Estes RD (1991) The behavior guide to African mammals. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Hedges L, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Holm S (1979) A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
- Kingdon J (1988) East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear and mixed models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- McDonald JH (2009) Handbook of biological statistics (2nd ed.). Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore. Available via http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/statintro.html. Accessed 18 Aug 2009
- 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 79–96Google Scholar
- McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 409–425Google Scholar
- Mineka S, Cook M (1993) Mechanisms involved in the observational conditioning of fear. J Exp Psychol 122:23–38Google Scholar
- Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. WH Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- SYSTAT (2007) SYSTAT version 12.0. SPSS Incorporated, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Zuberbühler K, Jenny D, Bishary R (1999) The predator deterrence function of primate alarm calls. Ethology 105:477–490Google Scholar