Animal Communication

Searcy, William A.; Nowicki, Stephen

doi:10.1002/9781119109556.ch14

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 103 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous definitions state that high eavesdropping reliability entails both few false alarms and few missed detections, from the perspective of the receiver, but have not formally characterized reliability in eavesdropping (Magrath et al, 2015 ; Searcy & Nowicki, 2005 ). We define eavesdropping reliability ,

, as the total probability of correct categorization, which is the probability of a correct detection of a predator of the receiver, plus the probability of a correct rejection.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rates of false alarms within alarm calling may sometimes be lower than previously assumed. It is often suggested that there will be a large proportion of false alarms, because the cost of predation greatly outstrips the cost of unnecessary fleeing (Magrath et al, 2015 ; Munn, 1986 ; Searcy & Nowicki, 2005 ). This expectation has been supported in some cases: roosters give aerial alarms to a variety of birds in flight, most of which do not pose a direct threat (Gyger et al, 1987 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Animals produce inadvertent cues from their routine activities, which can be a source of information, such as when a frog hears the flapping of an approaching predatory bat (Bernal et al, 2007 ); (Table 1 provides a glossary of key terms). By contrast, communicatory signals are produced deliberately to enable communication with intended receivers (Bradbury & Vehrencamp, 2011 ; Maynard Smith & Harper, 2003 ; Searcy & Nowicki, 2005 ). However, signals intended for specific receivers can also be detected by third parties in the process of eavesdropping .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reliability of heterospecific alarm calls is thought to be an important constraint in the evolution of eavesdropping (Goodale et al, 2010 ; Magrath et al, 2015 ; Schmidt et al, 2010 ; Seppänen et al, 2007 ). A calling species is reliable to the degree it only and always calls when a predator is present (Magrath et al, 2015 ; Searcy & Nowicki, 2005 ). In other words, reliability is high if there are few false alarms given to non‐predators (false positives), as well as few missed detections of predators (false negatives).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eavesdroppers should benefit most from heterospecific alarm calls when they are relevant (Magrath et al, 2015 ; Searcy & Nowicki, 2005 ). Call relevance is the degree to which heterospecific alarm calls identify threats that pose similar levels of danger to the eavesdropper as they do to the sender.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The evolution of eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: Relevance, reliability, and personal information

Turner

Spike

Magrath

2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interceptive eavesdropping on the alarm calls of heterospecifics provides crucial information about predators. Previous research suggests predator discrimination, call relevance, reliability, and reception explain when eavesdropping will evolve. However, there has been no quantitative analysis to scrutinize these principles, or how they interact. We develop a mathematical framework that formalizes the study of the key principles thought to select for eavesdropping. Interceptive eavesdropping appears to be greatly affected by the threat faced by caller and eavesdropper, as well as presence of informational noise affecting the detection of calls and predators. Accordingly, our model uses signal detection theory to examine when selection will favor alarm calling by a sender species and fleeing by an eavesdropping receiver species. We find eavesdropping is most strongly selected when (1) the receiver faces substantial threats, (2) species are ecologically similar, (3) senders often correctly discriminate threats, (4) receivers often correctly perceive calls, and (5) the receiver's personal discrimination of threats is poor. Furthermore, we find (6) that very high predation levels can select against eavesdropping because prey cannot continuously flee and must conserve energy. Reliability of heterospecific calls for identifying threats is thought to be important in selecting for eavesdropping. Consequently, we formally define reliability, showing its connection to specificity and sensitivity, clarifying how these quantities can be measured. We find that high call relevance, due to similar vulnerability to predators between species, strongly favors eavesdropping. This is because senders trade-off false alarms and missed predator detections in a way that is also favorable for the eavesdropper, by producing less of the costlier error.Unexpectedly, highly relevant calls increase the total number of combined errors and so have lower reliability. Expectedly, when noise greatly affects personally gathered cues to threats, but not heterospecific calls or detection of predators, eavesdropping is favored.

show abstract

, as the total probability of correct categorization, which is the probability of a correct detection of a predator of the receiver, plus the probability of a correct rejection.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%