|
Digweed, S. M., Fedigan, L. M., & Rendall, D. (2005). Variable specificity in the anti-predator vocalizations and behaviour of the white-faced capuchin, Cebus capucinus. Behaviour, 142(8). Retrieved June 1, 2024, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853905774405344
Abstract: (Accepted: 23 June 2005)
Summary
Much research in animal communication is aimed at understanding the functional design
features of animal vocal signals. Our detailed analyses of the vocalizations and behavioural
responses elicited in white-faced capuchins by predators and other disturbances point to two
call variants that differ modestly in their acoustic structure and that are accompanied by
functionally distinct behavioural responses. The first variant is given exclusively to avian
predators and is almost invariably accompanied by the monkeys immediate descent from
the treetops where it is most vulnerable; therefore, we label this call variant the aerial
predator alarm?. The second variant, that differs only slightly but noticeably from the first,
is given to a wide range of snakes and mammals, including a range of species that represent
no predatory threat to the monkeys. This second call is also associated with more variable
responses from calling monkeys, from delayed retreat from the source of disturbance, to
active approach, inspection, and sometimes mobbing of the animal involved. We therefore
label this variant more generally as an “alerting call”. Although some other primate species
show a more diverse system of anti-predator calls, and the capuchins themselves may yet
be found to produce a greater variety of calls, a system of two call variants with varying
degrees of predator specificity and behavioural response is not uncommon among primates
and appears functionally appropriate for capuchins. The basic structure of the alerting call
allows conspecific listeners to localize the caller and the source of disturbance readily, thereby
allowing listeners to approach and assist in mobbing in cases where the disturbance warrants
it, or to avoid the area in cases where the disturbance is identified as a predatory threat.
Conversely, the aerial predator alarm is inherently less localizable and therefore conveys the
|
|