Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 1015–1019 | Cite as

You sound familiar: carrion crows can differentiate between the calls of known and unknown heterospecifics

  • Claudia A. F. WascherEmail author
  • Georgine Szipl
  • Markus Boeckle
  • Anna Wilkinson
Short Communication


In group-living animals, it is adaptive to recognize conspecifics on the basis of familiarity or group membership as it allows association with preferred social partners and avoidance of competitors. However, animals do not only associate with conspecifics but also with heterospecifics, for example in mixed-species flocks. Consequently, between-species recognition, based either on familiarity or even individual recognition, is likely to be beneficial. The extent to which animals can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar heterospecifics is currently unclear. In the present study, we investigated the ability of eight carrion crows to differentiate between the voices and calls of familiar and unfamiliar humans and jackdaws. The crows responded significantly more often to unfamiliar than familiar human playbacks and, conversely, responded more to familiar than unfamiliar jackdaw calls. Our results provide the first evidence that birds can discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar heterospecific individuals using auditory stimuli.


Interspecies recognition Familiarity Vocal information Playback Carrion crows 



We are grateful to Thomas Bugnyar, Ludwig Huber, and Kurt Kotrschal for their support and Karl-Heinz Siebenrock, Carlos David Santos, and Monika Krome for enabling us access to the jackdaw aviary in Radolfzell and András Péter for the Solomon Coder. We also would like to thank Stephen E. G. Lea and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript, Thomas Walsdorff for help with filming and thanks to Ulli Aust, Katharina Kramer, Alexandra Christian, Nadja Kavcik, Vera Brust, Irene Campderrich, Gesche Fitch, Anna Ria Holtmann for providing the stimuli. The project was funded by the FWF project (P19574 AND START2008-1013) the ESF EUROCORES program TECT: COCOR (I105-G11). Permanent support was provided by the “Verein der Förderer” and the Herzog von Cumberland Stiftung.

Supplementary material

10071_2012_508_MOESM1_ESM.docx (44 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 64 kb)


  1. Barnard CJ, Burk T (1979) Dominance hierarchies and the evolution of individual recognition. J Theor Biol 81:65–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumstein DT, Munos O (2005) Individual, age and sex-specific information is contained in yellow-bellied marmot alarm calls. Anim Behav 69:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonadonna F, Miguel E, Grosbois V, Jouventin P, Bessiere JM (2007) Individual-specific odour recognition in birds: an endogenous olfactory signature on petrels’ feathers? J Chem Ecol 33:1819–1829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman CA, Weary DM (2005) Variability in spider monkeys’ vocalizations may provide basis for individual recognition. Am J Primatol 22:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark JA, Boersma PD, Olmsted DM (2006) Name that tune: call discrimination and individual recognition in Magellanic penguins. Anim Behav 72:1141–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dale J, Lank DB, Reeve HK (2001) Signalling individual identity versus quality: a model and case studies with ruffs, queleas, and house finches. Am Nat 158:75–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fallow PM, Margrath RD (2010) Eavesdropping on other species: mutual interspecific understanding of urgency information in avian alarm calls. Anim Behav 79:411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frye RJ (1983) Experimental field evidence of interspecific aggression between two species of kangaroo rat (Dipodomys). Oecologia 59:74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hare JF (1998) Juvenile Richardson’s ground squirrel, Spermophilus richardsonii, discriminate among individual alarm callers. Anim Behav 55:451–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hojesjo J, Johnsson JI, Petersson E, Jarvi T (1998) The importance of being familiar: individual recognition and social behaviour in sea trout (Salmo trutta). Behav Ecol 9:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hopp SL, Jablonski PG, Brown JL (2001) Recognition of group membership by voice in Mexican jays, Aphelocoma ultramarina. Anim Behav 62:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Humphrey RC (1989) Observations on cooperative mobbing of a bald eagle. J Raptor Res 23:48Google Scholar
  13. Johnsson JI (2010) Individual recognition affects aggression and dominance relations in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Ethology 103:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kitchen DM, Bergman TJ, Cheney DL, Nicholson JR, Seyfarth RM (2010) Comparing responses of four ungulate species to playbacks of baboon alarm calls. Anim Cogn 13:861–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kondo N, Izawa E-I, Watanabe S (2012) Crows cross-modally recognize group members but not non-group members. Proc R Soc B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2419 Google Scholar
  16. Lea AJ, Barrera JP, Tom LM, Blumstein DT (2008) Heterospecific eavesdropping in a nonsocial species. Behav Ecol 19:1041–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee WY, Lee S-i, Choe JC, Jablonski PG (2011) Wild birds recognize individual humans: experiments on magpies, Pica pica. Anim Cogn 14:817–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levey DJ, Londono GA, Ungvari-Martin J, Hiersoux MR, Jankowski JE, Poulsen JR (2009) Urban mockingbirds quickly learn to identify individual humans. PNAS 106:8959–8962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenz K (1952) King Solomon’s Ring. T.Y. Crowell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Lynnes A, Reid K, Croxall J, Trathan P (2002) Conflict or co-existence? Foraging distribution and competition for prey between Adélie and chintrap penguins. Mar Biol 141:1165–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magrath RD, Pitcher BJ, Gardner JL (2009a) Recognition of other species’ aerial alarm calls: speaking the same language or learning another? Proc R Soc B 276:760–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magrath RD, Pitcher BJ, Gardner JL (2009b) An avian eavesdropping network: alarm signal reliability and heterospecific response. Behav Ecol 20:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marechal L, Genty E, Roeder JJ (2010) Recognition of faces of known individuals in two lemur species (Eulemur fulvus and E. macaco). Anim Behav 79:1157–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marzluff JM, Angell T (2005) In the company of crows and ravens. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  25. Marzluff JM, Walls J, Cornell HN, Withney JC, Craig DP (2010) Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows. Anim Behav 79:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parr CS (1997) Social behavior and long-distance vocal communication in Eastern American crows. University of Michigan, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  27. Parr LA, Winslow JT, Hopkins WD, de Waal FBM (2000) Recognizing facial cues: individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psych 114:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Powell GVN (1974) Experimental analysis of the social value of flocking by starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in relation to predation and foraging. Anim Behav 22:501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rainey HJ, Zuberbühler K, Slater PJB (2004a) Hornbills can distinguish between primate alarm calls. Proc R Soc B 271:755–759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rainey HJ, Zuberbühler K, Slater PJB (2004b) The responses of black-casqued hornbills to predator vocalisations and primate alarm calls. Behaviour 141:1263–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rendall D, Rodman PS, Emond RE (1996) Vocal recognition of individuals and kin in free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Anim Behav 51:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Röell A (1978) Social behaviour of the jackdaw, Covus monedula, in relation to its niche. Behaviour 64:1–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sayigh LS, Tyack PL, Wells RS, Solow AR, Scott MD, Irvine AB (1998) Individual recognition in wild bottlenose dolphins: a field test using playback experiments. Anim Behav 57:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snowdon CT, Cleveland J (1980) Individual recognition of contact calls by pygmy marmosets. Anim Behav 28:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbors in territorial systems-when are they dear enemies. Anim Behav 47:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thom MD, Hurst JL (2004) Individual recognition by scent. Ann Zool Fenn 41:765–787Google Scholar
  37. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2007) Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol 22:529–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waite RK (1984a) Sympatric corvids. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waite RK (1984b) Winter habitat selection and foraging behaviour in sympatric corvids. Ornis Scand 15:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wallace MP, Temple SA (1987) Competitive interactions within and between species in a guild of avian scavengers. Auk 104:290–295Google Scholar
  41. Wilkinson A, Specht HL, Huber L (2010) Pigeons can discriminate group mates from strangers using the concept of familiarity. Anim Behav 80:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yorzinski JL, Vehrencamp SL, McGowan KJ, Clark AB (2006) The inflected alarm caw of the American crow: differences in acoustic structure among individuals and sexes. Condor 108:518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia A. F. Wascher
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Georgine Szipl
    • 1
    • 2
  • Markus Boeckle
    • 2
  • Anna Wilkinson
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Konrad Lorenz Forschungsstelle (KLF), Department of Behavioural BiologyUniversity of ViennaGrünauAustria
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.School of Life SciencesUniversity of LincolnLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations