The acoustic structure of suricates' alarm calls varies with predator type and the level of response urgency

The variation in the acoustic structure of alarm calls appears to convey information about the level of response urgency in some species, while in others it seems to denote the type of predator. While theoretical models and studies on species with functionally referential calls have emphasized that any animal signal considered to have an external referent also includes motivational content, to our knowledge, no empirical study has been able to show this. In this paper, I present an example of a graded alarm call system that combines referential information and also information on the level of urgency. Acoustically different alarm calls in the social mongoose Suricata suricatta are given in response to different predator types, but their call structure also varies depending on the level of urgency. Low urgency calls tend to be harmonic across all predator types, while high urgency calls are noisier. There was less evidence for consistency in the acoustic parameters assigned to particular predator types across different levels of urgency. This suggests that, while suricates convey information about the level of urgency along a general rule, the referential information about each category of predator type is not encoded in an obvious way.

[1]  J. Macedonia,et al.  The vocal repertoire of the ringtailed lemur (Lemur catta). , 1993, Folia primatologica; international journal of primatology.

[2]  Lars Schrader,et al.  COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYSIS OF ACOUSTIC PARAMETERS IN ANIMAL VOCALISATIONS: A MULTI-PARAMETRIC APPROACH , 1997 .

[3]  R. F. Ewer.  The Behaviour of the Meerkat, Suricata suricatta (Schreber) , 1963 .

[4]  K. Zuberbühler,et al.  Diana monkey long-distance calls: messages for conspecifics and predators , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. , 1999, Science.

[6]  Peter Marler,et al.  Semantics of an avian alarm call system: the male domestic fowl , 1987 .

[7]  K. Hammerschmidt,et al.  Local variation in Barbary macaque shrill barks , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species , 1990 .

[9]  D. Blumstein,et al.  Alarm calling in yellow-bellied marmots: I. The meaning of situationally variable alarm calls , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  P. Marler,et al.  Vervet monkey alarm calls: Semantic communication in a free-ranging primate , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  E. Morton,et al.  Animal Vocal Communication: A New Approach , 1998 .

[12]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Costs of cooperative behaviour in suricates (Suricata suricatta) , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  Michael E. Pereira,et al.  Ringtailed lemur anti-predator calls denote predator class, not response urgency , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  E. Morton.  On the Occurrence and Significance of Motivation-Structural Rules in Some Bird and Mammal Sounds , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[15]  M. Manser,et al.  The information that receivers extract from alarm calls in suricates , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.