Barn owl nestlings vocally escalate when interrupted by a sibling: evidence from an interactive playback experiment

Ducouret, Pauline; Dreiss, Amélie N.; Gémard, Charlène; Falourd, Xavier; Roulin, Alexandre

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.09.003

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At this point, this vocally dominant owlet gradually spaces the timing of call emission and increases its call duration [ 31 , 32 , 34 ]. Conversely, before one owlet vocally dominates, when two owlets are calling during the same minute, their call duration and call rate are, respectively, positively and negatively adjusted [ 31 , 32 , 34 ]. This new study shows that body movements are particularly prevalent in this phase of intense exchange of numerous short calls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nestling sex was determined using molecular markers [ 40 ]. Considering that there is wide knowledge that the sex is not related to negotiation calls, nor to its behavioral effects on siblings [ 27 , 32 , 34 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], pairs of senior-junior nestlings (see below) were randomly composed with respect to sex.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, barn owl siblings adjust their vocal negotiation to one another on a short-term basis, independently of variation in food need, as shown by observational and experimental studies [ 27 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. The negotiation process between siblings may be similar to human dialogues, with specific turn-taking rules being used to decide when an individual will start or stop calling [ 31 , 32 , 34 ]. When an individual starts calling, it gradually produces longer but fewer calls per minute.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When an individual starts calling, it gradually produces longer but fewer calls per minute. When it “relaxes” and makes shorter calls, with longer pauses, another sibling is likely to interrupt it by emitting short calls and can gradually monopolize the negotiation [ 31 , 32 , 34 ]. By following these turn-taking rules, individuals have the opportunity to alternatively signal their motivation and perceive the motivation of their counterparts, which allows each individual to adequately decide to withdraw from the contest or to pursue competitive interaction [ 31 , 32 , 34 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Non-Vocal Behaviors Are More Frequent During the Decisive Negotiation Phases in Barn Owl Siblings

Dreiss

Romanò

Flint

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals produce vibrations or noises by means of body movements, which can play a role in communication. These behaviors enhance signal transmission or receiver attention and could be specifically used during turn-taking phases of a reciprocal exchange of signals. In the barn owl Tyto alba, nestlings vocalize one after the other to negotiate which individual will have priority access to the impending prey item to be delivered by the parents. Owlets adjust their vocalization to their own hunger level and to their siblings’ vocalization, withdrawing from the contest in front of highly vocal, and hence hungry, motivated nestmates. As sibling negotiation is a multicomponent display, we examined whether body movements could also be part of the negotiation process. To this end, we analyzed whether the vocalizations of one nestling affected its nestmate’s movements in three separate experiments: in natural nests, in the lab, and using a playback procedure. Nestling barn owls move in a variety of ways, such as repeated tapping of the floor with a foot, scratching the floor with claws, or flapping wings. Body movements were more frequent during the turn-taking phases of vocal interactions, when siblings emitted longer calls and at a greater rate. Once an individual monopolized vocal activity, siblings became less vocal and less active. Moreover, owlets produced more noisy body movements during the phases of vocal interactions which are crucial to prevail in negotiation. Non-vocal physical activities might reinforce vocal signals during sibling to sibling (sib–sib) interactions, or reflect owlets’ arousal, in the critical period during which they vocally settle which individual will dominate the competition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Non-Vocal Behaviors Are More Frequent During the Decisive Negotiation Phases in Barn Owl Siblings

Dreiss

Romanò

Flint

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…sibling's call overlaps to limit signal interference (Dreiss et al, 2013;Ducouret et al, 2018) and second, by favoring alternation of monologs (Dreiss et al, 2015). Indeed, during free vocal interactions between two siblings, 67% of calls are transmitted in monologs (i.e., 10 calls produced by one nestling without being interrupted by a sibling; Dreiss et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Art of Diplomacy in Vocally Negotiating Barn Owl Siblings

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To resolve conflicts over limited resources, animals often communicate about their motivation to compete. When signals are transient, the resolution of conflicts may be achieved after an interactive process, with each contestant adjusting its signaling level according to the rival's behavior. Unfortunately, the importance of the real-time signal adjustment in conflict resolution remains understudied, especially using experimental approaches. Here we developed a novel "automatic interactive playback" that interacts real-time with a live individual. It allowed us to experimentally test the efficacy of different behavioral strategies to dominate conflicts in nestling barn owls (Tyto alba). In this species, nestlings vocally negotiate for priority access to the impending food item in the absence of parents. Two opposite vocal strategies were tested for their prospects of success: under the "matching" vs. "mismatching" strategy, the playback behaves in the same vs. opposed way as the nestling, respectively. We evaluated how these two strategies affected the two main negotiation parameters: call duration and call rate. We found that the best strategies to reduce the nestling's vocalizations and hence dominate the negotiation are to match the call duration of the opponent and to mismatch its call rate. However, the latter strategy is the only one that allowed the playback to dominate the vocal interaction by inducing the opponent to become totally silent. Therefore, to prevail in a negotiation session, barn owl nestlings should delay the transmission of signals rather than simultaneously escalate vocalizations as commonly observed in animal competitive interactions. In addition, we showed that matching call duration and mismatching call rate require a larger investment by the playback, in terms of number and duration of calls, than the less effective strategies. Assuming that vocalizations are costly, this suggests that such behavioral strategies are honest. Our results highlight the importance of real-time signaling adjustment in communication processes over resource competition and emphasize the power of using interactive playback settings to investigate conflict resolution in animals.

show abstract

Still face in pet dogs (Canis familiaris).

Byrne,

Sawyer,

Johnston

2024

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dogs are able to cooperate in reciprocal exchange with humans but little is known about the extent of these abilities (Range & Virányi, 2015). In the Still Face paradigm, infants reply to a sudden nonreciprocal facial expression with gaze aversion and an increase in re-engagement and distress behaviors (E. Tronick et al., 1978). We directly adapted this method; the dog's owner talked to the dog, then abruptly switched to a still, neutral face, maintaining eye contact. In Study 1 (N = 20), we found that dogs showed a significant decrease in the amount of looking at the owner in the Still Face phase, paralleling the results found in gaze aversion in infants, and they performed fewer pawing and vocalizations toward the person in the Still Face phase. In Study 2 (N = 60), we included one condition of continuous physical contact, and one condition that was a direct replication of the initial study without physical contact. Similar to human infants, we found a significant decrease in looking from the Interaction phase to the Still Face phase. However, in contrast to human infants, re-engagement and stress behaviors were higher in the Interaction phase than the Still Face phase. Looking and re-engagement behaviors differed based on the condition, with a smaller difference between phases in the Petting condition. These results suggest that dogs are capable of perceiving these small changes in human affect. However, unlike human infants, dogs seem to have greater expectations about physical interactions than verbal interactions, as they reacted more strongly to an Interaction phase without physical contact than the Still Face.

show abstract

Barn owl nestlings vocally escalate when interrupted by a sibling: evidence from an interactive playback experiment

Cited by 5 publications

References 40 publications

Non-Vocal Behaviors Are More Frequent During the Decisive Negotiation Phases in Barn Owl Siblings

Non-Vocal Behaviors Are More Frequent During the Decisive Negotiation Phases in Barn Owl Siblings

The Art of Diplomacy in Vocally Negotiating Barn Owl Siblings

Still face in pet dogs (Canis familiaris).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About