Home | << 1 >> |
Record | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Cheney, D. l .; Seyfarth, R. M. | ||||
Title | Social complexity and the information acquired during eavesdropping by primates and other animals | Type | Book Chapter | ||
Year | 2004 | Publication | Animal Communication networks | Abbreviated Journal | |
Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
Keywords | |||||
Abstract | In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants” relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor & Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2). What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others? In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts: about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press. c. Cambridge University Press 2005. 583 P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/... 0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31 584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example, songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes, and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp, 1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy, because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another. Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be of little functional value. In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al., 1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide (Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988, 1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others would seem to be of great selective benefit. In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both potential differences and directions for further research |
||||
Address | |||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Cambridge University Press | Place of Publication | Cambridge, Massachusetts | Editor | McGregor, P.K. |
Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | Approved | no | |||
Call Number | refbase @ user @ | Serial | 495 | ||
Permanent link to this record |