4.2 Article

Monotony and the information content of Richardson's ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) repeated calls:: Tonic communication or signal certainty?

Journal

ETHOLOGY
Volume 110, Issue 2, Pages 147-156

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2003.00955.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The repetition of elements within an alarm signal is commonly thought to ensure that receivers have detected that signal, or to promote residual vigilance in light of the dangerous circumstances prompting the signal's initial production (tonic communication). Beyond alerting others and maintaining that state of alertness, however, repetitive signal elements may be parsed so as to encode information about the nature of potential threats. To determine how call length and variation in intersyllable latency might prove informative in the repetitive alarm vocalizations of Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii), we conducted a field-based playback experiment quantifying antipredator responses to manipulated alarm calls. Free-living juvenile squirrels were exposed to playbacks of 12 syllable (long) and six syllable (short) calls with a constant (monotonous) or changing (variable) call rate. The length of calls had no significant effect on the behaviour of call recipients during and immediately after call production; however, call recipients showed greater vigilance after the playback of monotonous calls than after variable calls. The absence of a call length effect is not consistent with tonic communication in the strict sense; rather, enhanced responsiveness to monotonous relative to variable calls suggests that multiple syllables, and the emergent patterns of intersyllable latency, communicate information about response urgency or the distance to a predatory threat. Only monotonous calls convey those aspects with any certainty on the part of the signaller and hence are selectively attended to by receivers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available