Animal Cognition

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 585–598 | Cite as

Mutual mother–offspring vocal recognition in an ungulate hider species (Capra hircus)

Original Paper

Abstract

Parent–offspring recognition can be essential for offspring survival and important to avoid misdirected parental care when progeny mingle in large social groups. In ungulates, offspring antipredator strategies (hiding vs. following) result in differences in mother–offspring interactions, and thus different selection pressures acting on the recognition process during the first weeks of life. Hider offspring are isolated and relatively stationary and silent to avoid detection by predators, whereas follower offspring are mobile and rapidly mix in large social groups. For these reasons, hiders have been suggested to show low offspring call individuality leading to unidirectional recognition of mothers by offspring and followers high offspring call individuality and mutual recognition. We hypothesised that similar differences would exist in hider species between the hiding phase (i.e. unidirectional recognition) and the phase when offspring join social groups (i.e. mutual recognition). We tested these predictions with goats (Capra hircus), a hider species characterised by strong mother–offspring attachment. We compared the individuality of kid and mother calls, and the vocal recognition ability, during the early phase of life when kids are usually hidden and later when kids have typically joined social groups. Contrary to our predictions, we found that both kids and mothers had individualised contact calls and that mutual recognition existed even during the hiding phase. The large differences in the duration of the hiding phase and in the rate of mother–offspring interactions (possibly partially driven by domestication in some species) probably cause variations among hider species in the mother–offspring recognition process.

Keywords

Acoustic analysis Antipredator strategies Follower Goat Hider Playback experiment Vocal communication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to E. Antill, C. Booth, E. Cant, C. Charpin, K. Cho Geun-A, C. Farrington, F. Galbraith, L. Kashap, J. Kemp, E. Landy, M. Padilla de la Torre and M. Wang for assistance, and to B. Pitcher, I. Charrier and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank D. Reby for providing the custom built programme in Praat. E. Briefer is funded by a Swiss National Science Foundation fellowship. We acknowledge the financial support of the University of London Central Research Fund. We thank the staff of White Post Farm (http://whitepostfarmcentre.co.uk/) for their help and free access to their animals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10071_2011_396_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (696 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 1. Examples of kids’ hiding sites. (PDF 696 kb)
10071_2011_396_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (47 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 2. Detailed description of the acoustic analysis. (PDF 47 kb)
10071_2011_396_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (79 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 3. Results of the PCAs and DFAs. (PDF 78 kb)

References

  1. Addae P, Awotwi E, Oppong-Anane K, Oddoye E (2000) Behavioural interactions between West African dwarf nanny goats and their single-born kids during the first 48 hours post-partum. Appl Anim Behav Sci 67:77–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad N, Noakes DE (1996) Sexual maturity in British breeds of goat kids. Brit Vet J 152:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubin T, Jouventin P (2002) How to vocally identify kin in a crowd: the penguin model. Adv Study Behav 31:243–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckford NS, Rood SR, Schaid D, Schanbacher B (1985) Androgen stimulation and laryngeal development. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 94:634–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Birgersson B, Ekvall K (1994) Suckling time and fawn growth in fallow deer (Dama dama). J Zool 232:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma P, Weenink D (2009) Praat: doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org/
  7. Bolker B, Brooks M, Clark C, Geange S, Poulsen J, Stevens M, White J (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bungo T, Shimojo M, Nakano Y, Okano K, Masuda Y, Goto I (1998) Relationship between nursing and suckling behaviour in Tokara native goats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 59:357–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakraborty PK, Stuart LD, Brown JL (1989) Puberty in the male Nubian goat: serum concentrations of LH, FSH and testosterone from birth through puberty and semen characteristics at sexual maturity. Anim Reprod Sci 20:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charlton BD, Keating JL, Kersey D, Rengui L, Huang Y, Swaisgood RR (2011) Vocal cues to male androgen levels in giant pandas. Biol Lett 7:71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charrier I, Aubin T, Mathevon N (2010) Mother-calf vocal communication in Atlantic walrus: a first field experimental study. Anim Cogn 13:471–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craig C (2000) Goldwave v.5.11. St John’s, Canada. http://www.goldwave.com/
  14. Fant G (1960) Acoustic theory of speech production. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher DO, Blomberg SP, Owens IPF (2002) Convergent maternal care strategies in ungulates and macropods. Evolution 56:167–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hänninen L, Pastell M (2009) Cowlog: open source software for coding behaviors from digital video. Behav Res Meth 41:472–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson R, Wichern D (1992) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenhardt ML (1977) Vocal contour cues in maternal recognition of goat kids. Appl Anim Ethol 3:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lent PC (1974) Mother–infant relationships in ungulates. In: Geist V, Walther F (eds) The behaviour of ungulates and its relationship to management. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, pp 14–55Google Scholar
  20. Lickliter RE (1984) Hiding behavior in domestic goat kids. Appl Anim Behav Sci 12:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lickliter RE, Heron JR (1984) Recognition of mother by newborn goats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 12:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Louca A, Economides S, Hancock J (1977) Effects of castration on growth rate, feed conversion efficiency and carcass quality in Damascus goats. Anim Prod 24:387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDougall P (1975) The feral goats of Kielderhead moor. J Zool 126:215–246Google Scholar
  24. McGarigal K, Cushman S, Stafford S (2000) Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. McGregor P (1992) Playback and studies of animal communication. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Medvin MB, Beecher MD (1986) Parent-offspring recognition in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Anim Behav 34:1627–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Mattiello S (2010) The importance of social behaviour for goat welfare in livestock farming. Appl Anim Behav Sci 90:1–10Google Scholar
  28. Mundry R, Sommer C (2007) Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative. Anim Behav 74:965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Brien PH (1988) Feral goat social organization: a review and comparative analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci 21:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pitcher BJ, Harcourt RG, Charrier I (2010) Rapid onset of maternal vocal recognition in a colonially breeding mammal, the Australian sea lion. PLoS One 5:e12195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poindron P, Nowak R, Levy F, Porter RH, Schaal B (1993) Development of exclusive mother–young bonding in sheep and goats. Oxf Rev Repod B 15:311–364Google Scholar
  32. Pollard KA, Blumstein DT (2011) Social group size predicts the evolution of individuality. Curr Biol 21:413–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price SA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL (2005) A complete phylogeny of the whales, dolphins and even-toed hoofed mammals (Cetartiodactyla). Biol Rev 80:445–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2009) R foundation for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org
  35. 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
  36. Reby D, Cargnelutti B, Hewison AJM (1999) Contexts and possible functions of barking in roe deer. Anim Behav 57:1121–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robisson P, Aubin T, Bremond J (1993) Individuality in the voice of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri: adaptation to a noisy environment. Ethology 94:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruiz-Miranda CR, Szymanski MD, Ingals JW (1993) Physical characteristics of the vocalizations of domestic goat does Capra hircus in response to their offspring’s cries. Bioacoustics 5:99–116Google Scholar
  39. Sèbe F, Nowak R, Poindron P, Aubin T (2007) Establishment of vocal communication and discrimination between ewes and their lamb in the first two days after parturition. Dev Psychobiol 49:375–386Google Scholar
  40. Shapiro AD (2009) Recognition of individuals within the social group: signature vocalizations. In: Brudzynski SM (ed) Handbook of mammalian vocalization—an integrative neuroscience approach. Academic Press, London, pp 495–503Google Scholar
  41. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Solow A (1990) A randomization test for misclassification probability in discriminant analysis. Ecology 71:2379–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soltis J, Leong K, Savage A (2005) African elephant vocal communication II: rumble variation reflects the individual identity and emotional state of callers. Anim Behav 70:589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoddard PK, Beecher MD (1983) Parental recognition of offspring in the cliff swallow. Auk 100:795–799Google Scholar
  45. Sueur J, Aubin T, Simonis C (2008) Equipment review: seewave, a free modular tool for sound analysis and synthesis. Bioacoustics 18:213–226Google Scholar
  46. Taylor AM, Reby D (2010) The contribution of source-filter theory to mammal vocal communication research. J Zool 280:221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2007) Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol 22:529–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Titze I (1994) Principles of voice production. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  49. Torriani VG, Vannoni E, McElligott AG (2006) Mother-young recognition in an ungulate hider species: a unidirectional process. Am Nat 168:412–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trivers RL (1972) Sexual selection and the descent of man. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  51. Vannoni E, McElligott AG (2007) Individual acoustic variation in fallow deer (Dama dama) common and harsh groans: a source-filter theory perspective. Ethology 113:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolf CJ, Hotchkiss A, Ostby JS, LeBlanc GA, Earl Gray L Jr (2002) Effects of prenatal testosterone propionate on the sexual development of male and female rats: a dose-response study. Tox Sci 65:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological and Chemical SciencesQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations