4.6 Article

Group cohesion in foraging meerkats: follow the moving 'vocal hot spot'

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170004

关键词

close calls; cohesion; coordination; group split; meerkat; vocal hot spot

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PDFMP3_141768]
  2. European Research Council [294494]
  3. University of Zurich
  4. Mammal Research Institute at the University of Pretoria
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PDFMP3_141768] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group coordination, when 'on the move' or when visibility is low, is a challenge faced by many social living animals. While some animals manage to maintain cohesion solely through visual contact, the mechanism of group cohesion through other modes of communication, a necessity when visual contact is reduced, is not yet understood. Meerkats (Suricata suricatta), a small, social carnivore, forage as a cohesive group while moving continuously. While foraging, they frequently emit 'close calls', soft close-range contact calls. Variations in their call rates based on their local environment, coupled with individual movement, produce a dynamic acoustic landscape with a moving 'vocal hotspot' of the highest calling activity. We investigated whether meerkats follow such a vocal hotspot by playing back close calls of multiple individuals to foraging meerkats from the front and back edge of the group simultaneously. These two artificially induced vocal hotspots caused the group to spatially elongate and split into two subgroups. We conclude that meerkats use the emergent dynamic call pattern of the group to adjust their movement direction and maintain cohesion. Our study describes a highly flexible mechanism for the maintenance of group cohesion through vocal communication, for mobile species in habitats with low visibility and where movement decisions need to be adjusted continuously to changing environmental conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据