IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v23y2012i3p544-550..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foraging guild influences dependence on heterospecific alarm calls in Amazonian bird flocks

Author

Listed:
  • Ari E. Martínez
  • Rosana T. Zenil

Abstract

Interspecific eavesdropping on alarm calling has been considered evidence that species participating in mixed-species groups benefit from reduced risk of predation. Few studies, however, have examined interspecific variation in dependence on and ability to evaluate alarm signals in mixed-species groups. We conducted a playback experiment to evaluate how species in different foraging guilds varied in their response to alarm calls of birds that lead Amazonian mixed-species flocks in both upland and inundated forests. We predicted that species that search nearby substrates myopically would react more strongly to alarm calls (i.e., take longer to resume foraging) than flycatching species that search for insects at a greater distance from a perch. We used likelihood functions to model the latency response to resume foraging for both upland and inundated forests samples, and we were able to detect significant differences among different foraging guilds. Our results indicate that flycatching birds respond weakest in both forest types, but contrary to our predictions, live-leaf gleaners showed a stronger response to alarms than dead-leaf–gleaning insectivores in inundated forest and no difference in upland forest. These results suggest that foraging guild may underlie different levels of dependence on public versus private information and, thus, the dependence of different species on heterospecific informants. These different levels of dependence on alarm calls provide a potential mechanistic basis for understanding assembly rules of flocks.

Suggested Citation

  • Ari E. Martínez & Rosana T. Zenil, 2012. "Foraging guild influences dependence on heterospecific alarm calls in Amazonian bird flocks," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 544-550.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:3:p:544-550.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arr222
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert D. Magrath & Benjamin J. Pitcher & Janet L. Gardner, 2007. "A mutual understanding? Interspecific responses by birds to each other's aerial alarm calls," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(5), pages 944-951.
    2. Jason R. Courter & Gary Ritchison, 2010. "Alarm calls of tufted titmice convey information about predator size and threat," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(5), pages 936-942.
    3. Eben Goodale & Sarath W. Kotagama, 2008. "Response to conspecific and heterospecific alarm calls in mixed-species bird flocks of a Sri Lankan rainforest," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(4), pages 887-894.
    4. Robert D. Magrath & Benjamin J. Pitcher & Janet L. Gardner, 2009. "An avian eavesdropping network: alarm signal reliability and heterospecific response," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(4), pages 745-752.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stacia A. Hetrick & Kathryn E. Sieving, 2012. "Antipredator calls of tufted titmice and interspecific transfer of encoded threat information," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 83-92.
    2. Kimberley J. Mathot & Josue David Arteaga-Torres & Anne Besson & Deborah M. Hawkshaw & Natasha Klappstein & Rebekah A. McKinnon & Sheeraja Sridharan & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2024. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of unimodal and multimodal predation risk assessment in birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. May, R. & Reitan, O. & Bevanger, K. & Lorentsen, S.-H. & Nygård, T., 2015. "Mitigating wind-turbine induced avian mortality: Sensory, aerodynamic and cognitive constraints and options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 170-181.
    4. Daniela Campobello & Maurizio Sarà & James F. Hare, 2012. "Under my wing: lesser kestrels and jackdaws derive reciprocal benefits in mixed-species colonies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 425-433.
    5. Branislav Igic & Robert D. Magrath, 2014. "A songbird mimics different heterospecific alarm calls in response to different types of threat," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(3), pages 538-548.
    6. Carrie L. Branch & Todd M. Freeberg, 2012. "Distress calls in tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor): are conspecifics or predators the target?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 854-862.
    7. Lilah Hubbard & William King & Anmy Vu & Daniel T. Blumstein, 2015. "Heterospecific nonalarm vocalizations enhance risk assessment in common mynas," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(2), pages 632-638.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:23:y:2012:i:3:p:544-550.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.