In contrast to the cries of human infants, sounds made by non-human infants in different stressful behavioral contexts (hunger or physical discomfort, isolation, capture by humans or predators) are usually treated as distinct types of vocalizations. However, if distress vocalizations produced by different species and in different contexts share a common motivational state and associated neurochemical pathways, we can expect them to share a common acoustic structure and adaptive function, showing only limited variation that corresponds to the infant’s level of arousal. Based on this premise, we review the acoustic structure and adaptive function of two types of distress calls, those given when infants were isolated from their mothers (isolation calls) or captured by humans (capture calls). We conducted a within-context comparison examining the two call types across a diverse selection of mammalian species and other vertebrate groups, followed by a comparison of how acoustic structure and function differs between these contexts. In addition, we assessed acoustic traits that are critical to the response of caregivers. Across vertebrate species, distress vocalizations produced in these two behavioral contexts tend to be tonal with a simple chevron, flat or descending pattern of frequency modulation. Reports that both isolation and capture calls of vertebrate infants serve to attract care-givers are universal, and the fundamental frequency of infant vocalizations is often critical to this response. The results of our review are consistent with the hypothesis that differences in the acoustic structure of isolation and capture distress vocalizations reflect differences in arousal, and not discrete functions. The similarity in acoustic structure and caregiver response observed across vertebrates adds support to the hypothesis that the production and processing of distress vocalizations are part of a highly-conserved system of social vocal behaviour in vertebrates. Bioacoustic research may move forward by recognizing the commonality among different forms of infant solicitations that attract caregivers, and the commonality of these solicitations with vocalizations that attract conspecifics in still other behavioral contexts.

Defensive traits may evolve differently between sexes in dioecious plant species. Our current understanding of this process hinges on a partial view of the evolution of resistance traits that may result in male-biased herbivory in dioecious populations. Here, we present a critical summary of the current state of the knowledge of herbivory in dioecious species and propose alternative evolutionary scenarios that have been neglected. These scenarios consider the potential evolutionary and functional determinants of sexual dimorphism in patterns of resource allocation to reproduction, growth, and defence. We review the evidence upon which two previous reviews of sex-biased herbivory have concluded that male-biased herbivory is a rule for dioecious species, and we caution readers about a series of shortcomings of many of these studies. Lastly, we propose a minimal standard protocol that should be followed in any studies that intend to elucidate the (co)evolution of interactions between dioecious plants and their herbivores.

No abstract

Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) is intrinsically connected to knowledge holders’ worldviews and relationships to their environments. Mainstream rights-based approaches do not recognize this interconnection and are hence limited at protecting the integrity of ILK. This paper presents two cases in Colombia in which, by recognizing community-environment interconnections, the biocultural diversity framework advanced the protection of communities’ ILK. The first case draws on court findings that recognized Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples’ biocultural rights and granted legal personhood to the Atrato River—a pioneering ruling in the American hemisphere. The second case involved participatory fieldwork with the Embera peoples in designing a biocultural community protocol, reinforcing their relationship with the forest and protecting their biocultural heritage. The two cases illustrate that the biocultural diversity framework is inclusive of Indigenous and local communities’ worldviews and is hence an essential tool for the development of culturally appropriate protective mechanisms for ILK.