4.5 Article

Selective reactions to different killer whale call categories in two delphinid species

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 221, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.162479

关键词

Antipredator behavior; Acoustic discrimination; Non-linear acoustics; Pilot whales; Risso's dolphins

类别

资金

  1. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program [RC-2154]
  2. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Southeast Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The risk of predation is often invoked as an important factor influencing the evolution of social organization in cetaceans, but little direct information is available about how these aquatic mammals respond to predators or other perceived threats. We used controlled playback experiments to examine the behavioral responses of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) off Cape Hatteras, NC, USA, and Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus) off the coast of Southern California, USA, to the calls of a potential predator, mammal-eating killer whales. We transmitted calls of mammal-eating killer whales, conspecifics and baleen whales to 10 pilot whales and four Risso's dolphins equipped with multi-sensor archival acoustic recording tags (DTAGs). Only playbacks of killer whale calls resulted in significant changes in tagged animal heading. The strong responses observed in both species occurred only following exposure to a subset of killer whale calls, all of which contained multiple non-linear properties. This finding suggests that these structural features of killer whale calls convey information about predatory risk to pilot whales and Risso's dolphins. The observed responses differed between the two species; pilot whales approached the sound source while Risso's dolphins fled following playbacks. These divergent responses likely reflect differences in anti-predator response mediated by the social structure of the two species.

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

4.5
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