Functionally referential alarm calls in noisy miners communicate about predator behaviour

Cunningham, S. K.; Magrath, Robert D.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.05.021

Cited by 39 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further investigations could be made into how specific these alarm calls are, that is do alarm calls identify predators to species level or are they more generic? Some research on Noisy Miners Manorina melanocephala has determined different alarm calls are elicited by different groups of predators, suggesting this may be possible retrospectively (Cunningham and Magrath, 2017;Holt et al 2017).…”

Section: Acoustically Detectable Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do acoustically detectable species reflect overall diversity? A case study from Australia’s arid zone

Smith

Truskinger

Roe

et al. 2020

Remote Sens Ecol Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, passive acoustic monitoring has emerged as a reliable method for monitoring soniferous fauna, with numerous studies finding estimates of species richness and community composition are comparable with estimates derived from conventional field surveys. Most of these studies compare point counts of forest bird communities with contemporaneous short‐duration acoustic recordings, but several questions remain. How do these two methods compare in more open, arid ecosystems, how does applying methods optimally influence comparisons, and how do patterns in acoustically detectable species compare with overall patterns? Here we demonstrate techniques for improving sampling of acoustic data and conduct acoustic surveys to estimate species richness from ephemeral creek‐lines in the Australian arid zone using a long‐term passively derived acoustic dataset. We examine these results in the context of long‐term observer‐based transect surveys conducted along the same creek‐lines to define species within the avian assemblage that are acoustically detectable or acoustically undetectable/cryptic. Our data suggest that some species were consistently missed by acoustic surveys, but most belonged to groups that are typically excluded from inventories prior to analysis including rare species, raptors, waterbirds, swallows and nocturnal birds. Further, the relative diversities of sites were well estimated by acoustic surveys, with variations between sites reflecting those estimated by observer‐based field surveys. This suggests that in our study system, acoustically detectable species are reliable indicators of overall species richness. Field‐based surveys will remain an important component of sampling in arid ecosystems and we highlight the value of applying acoustic and conventional field‐based surveys in a complementary manner. This approach allows large, publishable datasets to be generated by exploiting the temporal reach of acoustic sensors, while also maximizing detections of acoustically cryptic species via field‐based surveys. We argue that acoustic monitoring has the potential to facilitate greater research effort in largely research‐deficient arid ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Acoustically Detectable Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do acoustically detectable species reflect overall diversity? A case study from Australia’s arid zone

Smith

Truskinger

Roe

et al. 2020

Remote Sens Ecol Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, noisy miners, Manorina melanocephala, produce functionally referential alarm calls for airborne and non-airborne predators, which elicit unique behavioral responses from receivers (Cunningham & Magrath, 2017;Farrow, Doohan, & McDonald, 2017). For instance, noisy miners, Manorina melanocephala, produce functionally referential alarm calls for airborne and non-airborne predators, which elicit unique behavioral responses from receivers (Cunningham & Magrath, 2017;Farrow, Doohan, & McDonald, 2017).…”

Section: Alarm and Defensementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, noisy miners, Manorina melanocephala, produce functionally referential alarm calls for airborne and non-airborne predators, which elicit unique behavioral responses from receivers (Cunningham & Magrath, 2017;Farrow, Doohan, & McDonald, 2017). Mobbing (a deterrent behavior) is an aggressive and vocally conspicuous response to non-airborne predators and competitors (Cunningham & Magrath, 2017), which is suggested as a reason for the negative relationship between bird species richness and miner abundance (Kutt, Vanderduys, Perry, & Perkins, 2012). By monitoring the alarm calls associated with mobbing, bioacoustics could produce a relatively straightforward way to monitor the occurrence of this behavior.…”

Section: Alarm and Defensementioning

confidence: 99%

Bioacoustic monitoring of animal vocal behavior for conservation

Teixeira

Maron

Rensburg

2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The popularity of bioacoustics for threatened species monitoring has surged. Large volumes of acoustic data can be collected autonomously and remotely with minimal human effort. The approach is commonly used to detect cryptic species and, more recently, to estimate abundance or density. However, the potential for conservationrelevant information to be derived from acoustic signatures associated with particular behavior is less well-exploited. Animal vocal behavior can reveal important information about critical life history events. In this study, we argue that the overlap of the disciplines of bioacoustics, vocal communication, and conservation behavior-thus, "acoustic conservation behavior"-has much to offer threatened species monitoring.In particular, vocalizations can serve as indicators of behavioral states and contexts that provide insight into populations as it relates to their conservation. We explore the information available from monitoring species' vocalizations that relate to reproduction and recruitment, alarm and defense, and social behavior, and how this information could translate into potential conservation benefits. While there are still challenges to processing acoustic data, we conclude that acoustic conservation behavior may improve threatened species monitoring where vocalizations reveal behaviors that are informative for management and decision-making. K E Y W O R D Sbioacoustics, conservation behavior, monitoring, vocal behavior, vocalizations

show abstract

“…Both locations contained a mixture of open grass, in which birds feed, and trees, required for nesting, roosting and shelter (Higgins, Peter, & Cowling, 2006). Local predators include brown goshawks Accipiter fasciatus, collared sparrowhawks, A. cirrocephalus, peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus and Australian hobbies, Falco longipennis (Taylor, 1992;Higgins, 1999), and foxes, Vulpes vulpes, cats, Felis catus, and dogs, Canis lupus familiaris (Cunningham & Magrath, 2017). The magpies in our study areas are habituated to humans, making them amenable subjects for our experiments.…”

Section: Study Site and Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eavesdropping magpies respond to the number of heterospecifics giving alarm calls but not the number of species calling

Igic

Ratnayake

Radford³

et al. 2019

Animal Behaviour

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social information varies in its reliability and relevance, requiring individuals to use rules to avoid inappropriate responses to false information. A simple rule is only to respond when a certain number of individuals provides similar information. Although individuals within social groups can use such numerical rules to assess conspecific information and make consensus decisions, it is unknown whether individuals apply similar rules when assessing the value of heterospecific information. We consider the case of individuals eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls. Eavesdroppers may be particularly vulnerable to false alarms because of the large pool of potential callers and variability in the specific threats to which they call. Individuals might therefore value alarm calls more if they come from multiple callers or multiple species than from a single caller or a single species. We tested these predictions using field playback experiments on wild Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen). Magpies responded more strongly to alarm calls coming from two callers versus one caller of the same heterospecific species. However, in contrast to our prediction, magpies responded similarly to alarm calls from two individuals of different species as they did to alarm calls from two individuals of the same species. We conclude that the number of calling individuals does affect response, probably because information from multiple callers is more reliable, but that the value or reliability of information from multiple species may depend on the types of alarm calls and combination of species involved.

show abstract

Functionally referential alarm calls in noisy miners communicate about predator behaviour

Cited by 39 publications

References 52 publications

Do acoustically detectable species reflect overall diversity? A case study from Australia’s arid zone

Do acoustically detectable species reflect overall diversity? A case study from Australia’s arid zone

Bioacoustic monitoring of animal vocal behavior for conservation

Eavesdropping magpies respond to the number of heterospecifics giving alarm calls but not the number of species calling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About