Interspecific audience effects on the alarm-calling behaviour of a kleptoparasitic bird

Audience effects are increasingly recognized as an important aspect of intraspecific communication. Yet despite the common occurrence of interspecific interactions and considerable evidence that individuals respond to the calls of heterospecifics, empirical evidence for interspecific audience effects on signalling behaviour is lacking. Here we present evidence of an interspecific audience effect on the alarm-calling behaviour of the kleptoparasitic fork-tailed drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis). When foraging solitarily, drongos regularly alarm at aerial predators, but rarely alarm at terrestrial predators. In contrast, when drongos are following terrestrially foraging pied babblers (Turdoides bicolor) for kleptoparasitic opportunities, they consistently give alarm calls to both aerial and terrestrial predators. This change occurs despite no difference in the amount of time that drongos spend foraging terrestrially. Babblers respond to drongo alarm calls by fleeing to cover, providing drongos with opportunities to steal babbler food items by occasionally giving false alarm calls. This provides an example of an interspecific audience effect on alarm-calling behaviour that may be explained by the benefits received from audience response.

[1]  N. Raihani,et al.  Adult vocalizations during provisioning: offspring response and postfledging benefits in wild pied babblers , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  A. Radford,et al.  Recruitment Calling: A Novel Form of Extended Parental Care in an Altricial Species , 2006, Current Biology.

[3]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens , 2001 .

[4]  A. S. Griffin,et al.  Mixed-species aggregations in birds: zenaida doves, Zenaida aurita, respond to the alarm calls of carib grackles, Quiscalus lugubris , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  Peter Marler,et al.  Bird calls: just emotional displays or something more? , 2008 .

[6]  Stephen P Ellner,et al.  Why Animals Lie: How Dishonesty and Belief Can Coexist in a Signaling System , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[7]  N. Raihani,et al.  Facultative response to a kleptoparasite by the cooperatively breeding pied babbler , 2007 .

[8]  C. Munn Birds that ‘cry wolf’ , 1986, Nature.

[9]  Robert D. Magrath,et al.  Communicating about danger: urgency alarm calling in a bird , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  A. Zahavi The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Alarm calls as costly signals of antipredator vigilance: the watchful babbler game , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  P. Slater,et al.  Hornbills can distinguish between primate alarm calls , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  G. Striedter,et al.  For whom the male calls: an effect of audience on contact call rate and repertoire in budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  Eben Goodale,et al.  ALARM CALLING IN SRI LANKAN MIXED-SPECIES BIRD FLOCKS , 2005 .

[15]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  Signalers and receivers in animal communication. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

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

[17]  E. Nel,et al.  The Geography of Edible Insects in Sub-Saharan Africa: a study of the Mopane Caterpillar , 2000 .