Should receivers follow multiple signal components? An economic perspective

Rubi, Tricia L.; Stephens, David W.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arv121

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be tested by broadcasting longer playback sequences than the 4-min sequences used in the present experiment, by broadcasting much higher playback call rate (call rate could be up to 45 calls/min), or by manipulating the background noise. We have shown here that playback loudness did not affect nestling vocal production, but we could also speculate that this lack of effect was due to nestlings only adjusting here to the most relevant signals (call rate) of the two playback acoustic signals (Rubi & Stephens, 2016). To test this hypothesis, we would need to broadcast a playback varying only in call loudness and examine whether it triggers a differential response from nestlings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

No need to shout: Effect of signal loudness on sibling communication in barn owls Tyto alba

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In animal communication, signal loudness is often ignored and seldom measured. We used a playback experiment to examine the role of vocal loudness (i.e., sound pressure level) in sibling to sibling communication of nestling barn owls Tyto alba. In this species, siblings vocally negotiate among each other for priority access to parental food resources. Call rate and call duration play key roles in this vocal communication system, with the most vocal nestlings deterring their siblings from competing for access to the food item next delivered by parents. Here, we broadcast calls at different loudness levels and call rate to live nestlings. The loudness of playback calls did not affect owlets' investment in call rate, call duration or call loudness. The rate at which playback calls were broadcast affected owlets' call rate but did not influence their response in terms of loudness. This suggests that selection for producing loud signals may be weak in this species, as loud calls may attract predators. Moreover, given that owlets do not overlap their calls and that they communicate to nearby siblings in the silence of the night, loud signals may not be necessary to convey reliable information about food need.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

No need to shout: Effect of signal loudness on sibling communication in barn owls Tyto alba

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relationships among individuals are adjusted by the transmission of signals (Boughman, ; Hurd & Enquist, ; Partan, ). There are several channels for signal transmission, such as acoustic, visual, chemical, and tactile (Partan, ; Rubi & Stephens, ). Among these channels, acoustic signals can take effect in darkness, penetrate through objects, and can be transmitted over long distances (Lemon, ; Slabbekoorn & Smith, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several channels for signal transmission, such as acoustic, visual, chemical, and tactile (Partan, 2013;Rubi & Stephens, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The function of three main call types in common cuckoo

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic signals play a key role in shaping the relationships in birds. Common cuckoos Cuculus canorus are known to produce various call types, but the function of these calls has only been studied recently. Here, we used a combination of field recordings (conducted in 2017) and playback experiments (conducted in 2018) to investigate the functional significance of common cuckoo calls. We found significant differences in the characteristics between male two‐element “cu‐coo” and three‐element “cu‐cu‐coo” calls, with these two call types being used in different contexts. The three‐element male “cu‐cu‐coo” calls were associated with females emitting their “bubbling” call. Playback experiments revealed that both males and females exhibit stronger responses to playing female “bubbling” calls than with the calls of the Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipter nisus) serving as a control, suggesting a significant intraspecific communication function for this call type. However, we did not find any evidence to support mate attraction in male calls, as females were not stimulated by playback of male calls compared with sparrowhawk calls in the control group.

show abstract

“…Receivers frequently need to discriminate between signallers based on their traits. While the evolution of multicomponent and multimodal signals have been the topic of many comprehensive reviews (Rowe, 1999;Candolin, 2003;Hebets & Papaj, 2005), to my knowledge no study has empirically investigated receiver economics under the complete range of conditions in which paying attention to no signal element, only one element or two signal elements is predicted to be optimal from a purely "economic" (Rubi & Stephens, 2016a) standpoint. While most experimental effort has been aimed at evaluating whether receivers attend to the single most reliable signalling trait when they are expected to do so (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with many such experimental tests (e.g. Rubi & Stephens 2016a), the four types of signallers (2 colours x 2 patterns) were initially unfamiliar to the decision maker, as was their relative frequency. Thus, the receivers had to use their experience to estimate not only the probability that a given type of signaller was desirable, but also the probability of seeing it in future presentations (which affects the future value of information).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two complementary models and an experimental test of how receivers respond to multicomponent visual signals

Voll¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should receivers follow multiple signal components? An economic perspective

Cited by 27 publications

References 52 publications

No need to shout: Effect of signal loudness on sibling communication in barn owls Tyto alba

No need to shout: Effect of signal loudness on sibling communication in barn owls Tyto alba

The function of three main call types in common cuckoo

Two complementary models and an experimental test of how receivers respond to multicomponent visual signals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About