Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 10, pp 1927–1934 | Cite as

All clear? Meerkats attend to contextual information in close calls to coordinate vigilance

  • Simon W. Townsend
  • Markus Zöttl
  • Marta B. Manser
Original Paper

Abstract

Socio-demographic factors, such as group size and their effect on predation vulnerability, have, in addition to intrinsic factors, dominated as explanations when attempting to understand animal vigilance behaviour. It is generally assumed that animals evaluate these external factors visually; however, many socially foraging species adopt a foraging technique that directly compromises the visual system. In these instances, such species may instead rely more on the acoustical medium to assess their relative risk and guide their subsequent anti-predator behaviour. We addressed this question in the socially foraging meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Meerkats forage with their head down, but at the same time frequently produce close calls (‘Foraging’ close calls). Close calls are also produced just after an individual has briefly scanned the surrounding environment for predators (‘Guarding’ close calls). Here, we firstly show that these Guarding and Foraging close call variants are in fact acoustically distinct and secondly subjects are less vigilant (in terms of frequency and time) when exposed to Guarding close call playbacks than when they hear Foraging close calls. We argue that this is the first evidence for socially foraging animals using the information encoded within calls, the main adaptive function of which is unrelated to immediate predator encounters, to coordinate their vigilance behaviour. In addition, these results provide new insights into the potential cognitive mechanisms underlying anti-predator behaviour and suggest meerkats may be capable of signalling to group members the ‘absence’ of predatory threat. If we are to fully understand the complexities underlying the coordination of animal anti-predator behaviour, we encourage future studies to take these additional auditory and cognitive dimensions into account.

Keywords

Close calls Vigilance coordination Meerkats Acoustic information Playbacks 

Supplementary material

265_2011_1202_MOESM1_ESM.doc (45 kb)
ESM 1Time frequency spectrogram and accompanying waveform showing two distinct tonal meerkat sentinel calls. Spectrogram window settings: FFT length = 512, Hamming window, window length = 0.05 s, bandwidth = 112 Hz, frequency resolution = 86 Hz, dynamic range = 70 dB. (DOC 45 kb)

References

  1. Allison PD (1999) Multiple regression: a primer. Pine Forge, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. Bednekoff PA, Bowman R, Woolfenden GE (2008) Do conversational gutturals help Florida scrub-jays coordinate their sentinel behavior? Ethology 114:313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell MBV, Radford AN, Rose R, Wade H, Ridley AR (2009) The value of constant surveillance in a risky environment. Proc R Soc B 276:2997–3005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell MBV, Radford AN, Smith RA, Thompson AM, Ridley AR (2010) Bargaining babblers: vocal negotiation of cooperative behaviour in a social bird. Proc R Soc B 277:3223–3228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC, McLean IG (2001) Group size effects in quokkas. Aust J Zool 49:641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bugnyar T, Kijne M, Kotrschal K (2001) Food calling in ravens: are yells referential signals? Anim Behav 61:949–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burkart JM, van Schaik CP (2010) Cognitive consequences of cooperative breeding in primates? Anim Cogn 13(1):1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter AJ, Pays O, Goldizen AW (2009) Individual variation in the relationship between vigilance and group size in eastern grey kangaroos. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charlton BD, Zhang Z, Snyder RJ (2010) Giant pandas perceive and attend to formant frequency variation in male bleats. Anim Behav 79:1221–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1990) How monkeys see the world. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, Kansky R, MacColl ADC, McIlrath G, Chadwick P, Brotherton PNM, O’Riain JM, Manser M, Skinner JD (1998) Costs of cooperative behaviour in suricates (Suricata suricatta). Proc R Soc B 265:185–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH, O’Riain MJ, Brotherton PNM, Gaynor D, Kansky R, Griffin AS, Manser M (1999) Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science 284:1640–1644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans CS, Evans L (2007) Representational signaling in birds. Biol Lett 2007(3):8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans CS, Evans L, Marler P (1993) On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Anim Behav 46:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faraway JJ (2006) Linear models with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernandez-Juricic E, Erichsen JT, Kacelnik A (2004) Visual perception and social foraging in birds. Trends Ecol Evol 19:25–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallistel CR (1990) The organization of learning. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Gouzoules S, Gouzoules H, Marler P (1984) Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) screams: representational signalling in the recruitment of agonistic aid. Anim Behav 32:182–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollen LI, Bell MBV, Radford AN (2008) Cooperative sentinel calling? Foragers gain increased biomass intake. Curr Biol 18:576–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunter TB, Skinner JD (1998) Vigilance behavior in African ungulates: the role of predation pressure. Behaviour 135:195–211Google Scholar
  23. Jennings T, Evans SM (1980) Influence of position in the flock and flock size on vigilance in the starling, Sturnus vulgaris. Anim Behav 28:634–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Back to basics of antipredatory vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Anim Behav 58:537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Macedonia JM, Evans CS (1993) Variation among mammalian alarm call systems and the problem of meaning in animal signals. Ethology 93:177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manser MB (1998) The evolution of auditory communication in suricates (Suricata suricatta). Ph.D. thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Manser MB (1999) Response of foraging group members to sentinel calls in suricates, Suricata suricatta. Proc R Soc B 266:1013–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manser MB (2001) The acoustic structure of suricates’ alarm calls varies with predator type and the level of response urgency. Proc R Soc B 268:2315–2324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manser MB, Bell MB, Fletcher LB (2001) The information that receivers extract from alarm calls in suricates. Proc R Soc B 268:2485–2491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mundry R, Sommer C (2007) Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative. Anim Behav 74:965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palombit RA, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1999) Male grunts as mediators of social interaction with females in wild chacma baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus). Behaviour 136:221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radford AN (2004) Vocal mediation of foraging competition in the cooperatively breeding green woodhoopoe, Phoeniculus purpureus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Radford AN, Ridley AR (2007) Individuals in foraging groups may use vocal cues when assessing their need for antipredator vigilance. Biol Lett 3:249–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rasa OAE (1986) Coordinated vigilance in dwarf mongoose family groups: the ‘watchman song’ hypothesis and the costs of guarding. Ethology 71:340–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ridley AR, Raihani NJ (2008) Task partitioning increases reproductive output in cooperative bird. Behav Ecol 19:1136–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schel AM, Candiotti A, Zuberbühler K (2010) Predator-deterring alarm call sequences in Guereza colobus monkeys are meaningful to conspecifics. Anim Behav 80:799–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schibler F, Manser MB (2007) The irrelevance of individual discrimination in meerkat alarm calls. Anim Behav 74:1259–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Vervet monkey alarm calls: semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Anim Behav 28:1070–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Bergman T, Fischer J, Zuberbuhler K, Hammerschmidt K (2010) The central importance of information in studies of animal communication. Anim Behav 80(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27(379–423):623–656Google Scholar
  44. Slocombe KE, Townsend SW, Zuberbuhler K (2009) Wild chimpanzees distinguish between different scream types: evidence from a playback study. Anim Cogn 12(3):441–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snowdon CT, Elowson AM (2001) ‘Babbling’ in pygmy marmosets: development after infancy. Behaviour 138:1235–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sullivan KA (1984) Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour 91:294–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Townsend SW, Manser MB (2011) The function of non-linear phenomena in meerkat alarm calls. Biol Lett 7:47–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Townsend SW, Hollen LI, Manser MB (2010) Meerkat close calls encode group-specific signatures but receivers fail to discriminate. Anim Behav 80:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uster D, Zuberbuhler K (2001) The functional significance of Diana monkey ‘clear calls’. Behaviour 138:741–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valone TJ (2007) From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behaviour of others: a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weiner N (1961) Cybernetics; or control and communication in the animal and the machine. MIT Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wickler W (1985) Coordination of vigilance in bird groups: the “watchman’s song” hypothesis. Z Tierpsychol 69:250–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zuberbuhler K (2000) Referential labeling in Diana monkeys. Anim Behav 59:917–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon W. Townsend
    • 1
    • 3
  • Markus Zöttl
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marta B. Manser
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Animal Behaviour, Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Kalahari Meerkat ProjectKuruman River ReserveSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations