Size and shape information serve as labels in the alarm calls of Gunnison’s prairie dogs Cynomys gunnisoni

Abstract

Some animals have the capacity to produce different alarm calls for terrestrial and aerial predators. However, it is not clear what cognitive processes are involved in generating these calls. One possibility is the position of the predator: Anything on the ground receives a terrestrial predator call, and anything in the air receives an aerial predator call. Another possibility is that animals are able to recognize the physical features of predators and incorporate those into their calls. As a way of elucidating which of these mechanisms plays a primary role in generating the structure of different calls, we performed two field experiments with Gunnison’s prairie dogs. First, we presented the prairie dogs with a circle, a triangle, and a square, each moving across the colony at the same height and speed. Second, we presented the prairie dogs with two squares of differing sizes. DFA statistics showed that 82.6 percent of calls for the circle and 79.2 percent of the calls for the triangle were correctly classified, and 73.3 percent of the calls for the square were classified as either square or circle. Also, 100 percent of the calls for the larger square and 90 percent of the calls for the smaller square were correctly classified. Because both squares and circles are features of terrestrial predators and triangles are features of aerial predators, our results suggest that prairie dogs might have a cognitive mechanism that labels the abstract shape and size of different predators, rather than the position of the predator.

Elephants can determine ethnicity, gender, and age from acoustic cues in human voices

“…Moreover, as it is typically the case that not all humans pose the same risk to prey species, distinguishing between different human subgroups to identify those associated with genuinely threatening situations could present a major cognitive challenge. The extent of behavioral flexibility that different species may exhibit in correctly classifying human predators-and the degree of sophistication possible in such abilities-is therefore of considerable interest.Most research on the abilities of animals to classify human predators has focused on discrimination through facial features or general differences in behavior and appearance (5,(11)(12)(13). This focus has demonstrated that a number of different species are able to use visual cues to distinguish between individual humans that present varying levels of threat (4, 5, 14-16).…”

“…Most research on the abilities of animals to classify human predators has focused on discrimination through facial features or general differences in behavior and appearance (5,(11)(12)(13). This focus has demonstrated that a number of different species are able to use visual cues to distinguish between individual humans that present varying levels of threat (4, 5, 14-16).…”

Cognitive ethology

“…Since then, acoustically distinctive calls for aerial and for ground predators have been found in a diverse number of species, including chickens( Gallus gallus domesticus) , many species of ground squirrels ( Spermophilus spp . ), tree squirrels ( Tamiasciurus hudsonicus ), social mongooses (aka Meerkats) ( Suricata suricatta ), prairie dogs (Gunnison's ( Cynomys gunnisoni ) and Black‐tailed ( Cynomys ludovicianus )), and various lemurs and monkeys (reviewed in Ref ). For some species the calls appear to be quite specific in their referents, for example, the vervet monkeys have three types of calls causing differential responding, for example, looking upward and running to a nearby bush to the call for eagle‐type predators, looking to the ground for snake‐type calls and running up into the trees or remaining quietly there for calls for leopard‐like predators .…”

Analysis of ultrasonic vocalizations from mice using computer vision and machine learning

“…In animals, vocal communication transmits information about the state of the caller and influences the state of the listener. This information can be relevant for the identification of individuals or groups ( Hoffmann et al, 2012 ); status within the group (e.g., dominance, submission, fear, or aggression; Nyby et al, 1976 ); next likely behavior (e.g., approach, flee, play, or mount; Neunuebel et al, 2015 ); environmental conditions (e.g., presence of predators, location of food; Slobodchikoff et al, 2012 ); and facilitation of mother–offspring interactions ( D'Amato et al, 2005 ).…”