1
|
Martin M, Gridley T, Immerz A, Elwen SH, Charrier I. Use of acoustic signals in Cape fur seal mother-pup reunions: individual signature, signal propagation and pup home range. J Exp Biol 2024; 227:jeb246917. [PMID: 38953226 DOI: 10.1242/jeb.246917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/31/2024] [Indexed: 07/03/2024]
Abstract
The Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) is one of the most colonial mammals, with colonies of up to hundreds of thousands of individuals during the breeding season. During the lactation period, mothers and pups are regularly separated as females undertake multi-day foraging trips at sea. Mothers and pups use a mutual vocal recognition system to reunite after separation. Such communication is highly constrained by both high background noise and risk of individual confusion owing to the density of seals. This study aimed to experimentally assess the acoustic features relevant for mother-pup vocal identification and the propagation properties of their calls. Playback experiments revealed that mother and pup individual vocal signatures rely on both temporal and frequency parameters: amplitude and frequency modulations, timbre and fundamental frequency (f0). This is more parameters than in any colonial species studied so far. The combinational use of acoustic features reinforces the concept that both environmental and social constraints may have acted as selective pressures on the individual vocal recognition systems. Theoretical propagation distances of mother and pup vocalisations were estimated to be below the range of distances at which mother-pup reunions can occur. This suggests that Cape fur seals may have strong abilities to extract vocal signals from the background noise, as previously demonstrated in the highly colonial king penguin. Investigating the transmission of information throughout the propagation of the signal as well as the ability of the receiving individual to decipher vocal signatures is crucial to understanding vocal recognition systems in the wild.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathilde Martin
- Institut des Neurosciences Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, 151 Route de la Rotonde, 91400 Saclay, France
- Sea Search Research and Conservation NPC, 4 Bath Road, Muizenberg, Cape Town 7945, South-Africa
| | - Tess Gridley
- Sea Search Research and Conservation NPC, 4 Bath Road, Muizenberg, Cape Town 7945, South-Africa
- Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7605, South Africa
| | - Antonia Immerz
- Mammal Research Institute Whale Unit, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa
| | - Simon H Elwen
- Sea Search Research and Conservation NPC, 4 Bath Road, Muizenberg, Cape Town 7945, South-Africa
- Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7605, South Africa
| | - Isabelle Charrier
- Institut des Neurosciences Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, 151 Route de la Rotonde, 91400 Saclay, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Podraza ME, Moss JB, Fischer EK. Evidence for individual vocal recognition in a pair-bonding poison frog, Ranitomeya imitator. J Exp Biol 2024; 227:jeb246753. [PMID: 38229576 DOI: 10.1242/jeb.246753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/18/2024]
Abstract
Individually distinctive vocalizations are widespread in nature, although the ability of receivers to discriminate these signals has only been explored through limited taxonomic and social lenses. Here, we asked whether anuran advertisement calls, typically studied for their role in territory defense and mate attraction, facilitate recognition and preferential association with partners in a pair-bonding poison frog (Ranitomeya imitator). Combining no- and two-stimulus choice playback experiments, we evaluated behavioral responses of females to male acoustic stimuli. Virgin females oriented to and approached speakers broadcasting male calls independent of caller identity, implying that females are generally attracted to male acoustic stimuli outside the context of a pair bond. When pair-bonded females were presented with calls of a mate and a stranger, they showed significant preference for calls of their mate. Moreover, behavioral responses varied with breeding status: females with eggs were faster to approach stimuli than females that were pair bonded but did not currently have eggs. Our study suggests a potential role for individual vocal recognition in the formation and maintenance of pair bonds in a poison frog and raises new questions about how acoustic signals are perceived in the context of monogamy and biparental care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Molly E Podraza
- Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
| | - Jeanette B Moss
- Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
- Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
| | - Eva K Fischer
- Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
- Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
- Department of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Austin RE, De Pascalis F, Votier SC, Haakonsson J, Arnould JPY, Ebanks-Petrie G, Newton J, Harvey J, Green JA. Interspecific and intraspecific foraging differentiation of neighbouring tropical seabirds. MOVEMENT ECOLOGY 2021; 9:27. [PMID: 34039419 PMCID: PMC8152358 DOI: 10.1186/s40462-021-00251-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/01/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Social interactions, reproductive demands and intrinsic constraints all influence foraging decisions in animals. Understanding the relative importance of these factors in shaping the way that coexisting species within communities use and partition resources is central to knowledge of ecological and evolutionary processes. However, in marine environments, our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to and allow coexistence is limited, particularly in the tropics. METHODS Using simultaneous data from a suite of animal-borne data loggers (GPS, depth recorders, immersion and video), dietary samples and stable isotopes, we investigated interspecific and intraspecific differences in foraging of two closely-related seabird species (the red-footed booby and brown booby) from neighbouring colonies on the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean. RESULTS The two species employed notably different foraging strategies, with marked spatial segregation, but limited evidence of interspecific dietary partitioning. The larger-bodied brown booby foraged within neritic waters, with the smaller-bodied red-footed booby travelling further offshore. Almost no sex differences were detected in foraging behaviour of red-footed boobies, while male and female brown boobies differed in their habitat use, foraging characteristics and dietary contributions. We suggest that these behavioural differences may relate to size dimorphism and competition: In the small brown booby population (n < 200 individuals), larger females showed a higher propensity to remain in coastal waters where they experienced kleptoparasitic attacks from magnificent frigatebirds, while smaller males that were never kleptoparasitised travelled further offshore, presumably into habitats with lower kleptoparasitic pressure. In weakly dimorphic red-footed boobies, these differences are less pronounced. Instead, density-dependent pressures on their large population (n > 2000 individuals) and avoidance of kleptoparasitism may be more prevalent in driving movements for both sexes. CONCLUSIONS Our results reveal how, in an environment where opportunities for prey diversification are limited, neighbouring seabird species segregate at-sea, while exhibiting differing degrees of sexual differentiation. While the mechanisms underlying observed patterns remain unclear, our data are consistent with the idea that multiple factors involving both conspecifics and heterospecifics, as well as reproductive pressures, may combine to influence foraging differences in these neighbouring tropical species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R E Austin
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK.
| | - F De Pascalis
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK
- Present Address: Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - S C Votier
- The Lyell Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP, UK
| | - J Haakonsson
- Department of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
| | - J P Y Arnould
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia
| | - G Ebanks-Petrie
- Department of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
| | - J Newton
- NERC National Environmental Isotope Facility, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride, G75 0QF, UK
| | - J Harvey
- Department of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
- Present Address: Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1005, Cayman Islands
| | - J A Green
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Thiebault A, Pistorius P, Mullers R, Tremblay Y. Seabird acoustic communication at sea: a new perspective using bio-logging devices. Sci Rep 2016; 6:30972. [PMID: 27492779 PMCID: PMC4974508 DOI: 10.1038/srep30972] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2016] [Accepted: 07/11/2016] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Most seabirds are very noisy at their breeding colonies, when aggregated in high densities. Calls are used for individual recognition and also emitted during agonistic interactions. When at sea, many seabirds aggregate over patchily distributed resources and may benefit from foraging in groups. Because these aggregations are so common, it raises the question of whether seabirds use acoustic communication when foraging at sea? We deployed video-cameras with built in microphones on 36 Cape gannets (Morus capensis) during the breeding season of 2010–2011 at Bird Island (Algoa Bay, South Africa) to study their foraging behaviour and vocal activity at sea. Group formation was derived from the camera footage. During ~42 h, calls were recorded on 72 occasions from 16 birds. Vocalization exclusively took place in the presence of conspecifics, and mostly in feeding aggregations (81% of the vocalizations). From the observation of the behaviours of birds associated with the emission of calls, we suggest that the calls were emitted to avoid collisions between birds. Our observations show that at least some seabirds use acoustic communication when foraging at sea. These findings open up new perspectives for research on seabirds foraging ecology and their interactions at sea.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andréa Thiebault
- Department of Zoology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Campus, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa.,Marine Apex Predator Research Unit, Institute for Coastal and Marine Research, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Campus, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa
| | - Pierre Pistorius
- DST/NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute, Department of Zoology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Campus, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa.,Marine Apex Predator Research Unit, Institute for Coastal and Marine Research, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Campus, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa
| | - Ralf Mullers
- Department of Biodiversity, University of Limpopo, Private Bag X1106, Sovenga 0787, South Africa
| | - Yann Tremblay
- Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR MARBEC 248: Marine Biodiversity, Exploitation and Conservation, Avenue Jean Monnet CS 30171, 34203 Sète cedex, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kershenbaum A, Blumstein DT, Roch MA, Akçay Ç, Backus G, Bee MA, Bohn K, Cao Y, Carter G, Cäsar C, Coen M, DeRuiter SL, Doyle L, Edelman S, Ferrer-i-Cancho R, Freeberg TM, Garland EC, Gustison M, Harley HE, Huetz C, Hughes M, Bruno JH, Ilany A, Jin DZ, Johnson M, Ju C, Karnowski J, Lohr B, Manser MB, McCowan B, Mercado E, Narins PM, Piel A, Rice M, Salmi R, Sasahara K, Sayigh L, Shiu Y, Taylor C, Vallejo EE, Waller S, Zamora-Gutierrez V. Acoustic sequences in non-human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2016; 91:13-52. [PMID: 25428267 PMCID: PMC4444413 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 139] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2014] [Revised: 10/02/2014] [Accepted: 10/15/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Animal acoustic communication often takes the form of complex sequences, made up of multiple distinct acoustic units. Apart from the well-known example of birdsong, other animals such as insects, amphibians, and mammals (including bats, rodents, primates, and cetaceans) also generate complex acoustic sequences. Occasionally, such as with birdsong, the adaptive role of these sequences seems clear (e.g. mate attraction and territorial defence). More often however, researchers have only begun to characterise - let alone understand - the significance and meaning of acoustic sequences. Hypotheses abound, but there is little agreement as to how sequences should be defined and analysed. Our review aims to outline suitable methods for testing these hypotheses, and to describe the major limitations to our current and near-future knowledge on questions of acoustic sequences. This review and prospectus is the result of a collaborative effort between 43 scientists from the fields of animal behaviour, ecology and evolution, signal processing, machine learning, quantitative linguistics, and information theory, who gathered for a 2013 workshop entitled, 'Analysing vocal sequences in animals'. Our goal is to present not just a review of the state of the art, but to propose a methodological framework that summarises what we suggest are the best practices for research in this field, across taxa and across disciplines. We also provide a tutorial-style introduction to some of the most promising algorithmic approaches for analysing sequences. We divide our review into three sections: identifying the distinct units of an acoustic sequence, describing the different ways that information can be contained within a sequence, and analysing the structure of that sequence. Each of these sections is further subdivided to address the key questions and approaches in that area. We propose a uniform, systematic, and comprehensive approach to studying sequences, with the goal of clarifying research terms used in different fields, and facilitating collaboration and comparative studies. Allowing greater interdisciplinary collaboration will facilitate the investigation of many important questions in the evolution of communication and sociality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arik Kershenbaum
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, 1122 Volunteer Blvd., Suite 106, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-3410, USA
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Daniel T. Blumstein
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Los Angeles, 621 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, USA
| | - Marie A. Roch
- Department of Computer Science, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
| | - Çağlar Akçay
- Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
| | - Gregory Backus
- Department of Biomathematics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA
| | - Mark A. Bee
- Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 100 Ecology Building, 1987 Upper Buford Cir, Falcon Heights, MN 55108, USA
| | - Kirsten Bohn
- Integrated Science, Florida International University, Modesto Maidique Campus, 11200 SW 8th Street, AHC-4, 351, Miami, FL 33199, USA
| | - Yan Cao
- Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W Campbell Rd, Richardson, TX 75080, USA
| | - Gerald Carter
- Biological Sciences Graduate Program, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
| | - Cristiane Cäsar
- Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of St. Andrews, St Mary’s Quad South Street, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9JP, UK
| | - Michael Coen
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, K6/446 Clinical Sciences Center, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-4675, USA
| | - Stacy L. DeRuiter
- School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9SS, UK
| | - Laurance Doyle
- Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Ave, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
| | - Shimon Edelman
- Department of Psychology, Cornell University, 211 Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-7601, USA
| | - Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho
- Department of Computer Science, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, (Catalonia), Calle Jordi Girona, 31, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Todd M. Freeberg
- Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Austin Peay Building, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
| | - Ellen C. Garland
- National Marine Mammal Laboratory, AFSC/NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, Washington 98115, USA
| | - Morgan Gustison
- Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Heidi E. Harley
- Division of Social Sciences, New College of Florida, 5800 Bay Shore Rd, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA
| | - Chloé Huetz
- CNPS, CNRS UMR 8195, Université Paris-Sud, UMR 8195, Batiments 440-447, Rue Claude Bernard, 91405 Orsay, France
| | - Melissa Hughes
- Department of Biology, College of Charleston, 66 George St, Charleston, SC 29424, USA
| | - Julia Hyland Bruno
- Department of Psychology, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA
| | - Amiyaal Ilany
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, 1122 Volunteer Blvd., Suite 106, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-3410, USA
| | - Dezhe Z. Jin
- Department of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802-6300, USA
| | - Michael Johnson
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Marquette University, 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA
| | - Chenghui Ju
- Department of Biology, Queen College, The City Univ. of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, New York 11367, USA
| | - Jeremy Karnowski
- Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0515, USA
| | - Bernard Lohr
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA
| | - Marta B. Manser
- Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Brenda McCowan
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, 1 Peter J Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA
| | - Eduardo Mercado
- Department of Psychology; Evolution, Ecology, & Behavior, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Park Hall Room 204, Buffalo, NY 14260-4110, USA
| | - Peter M. Narins
- Department of Integrative Biology & Physiology, University of California Los Angeles, 612 Charles E. Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7246, USA
| | - Alex Piel
- Division of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street Cambridge, CB2 3QG, UK
| | - Megan Rice
- Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, 333 S. Twin Oaks Valley Rd., San Marcos, CA 92096-0001, USA
| | - Roberta Salmi
- Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia at Athens, 355 S Jackson St, Athens, GA 30602, USA
| | - Kazutoshi Sasahara
- Graduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan
| | - Laela Sayigh
- Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 86 Water St, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA
| | - Yu Shiu
- Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
| | - Charles Taylor
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Los Angeles, 621 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, USA
| | - Edgar E. Vallejo
- Department of Computer Science, Monterrey Institute of Technology, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur Col. Tecnológico C.P. 64849, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico
| | - Sara Waller
- Department of Philosophy, Montana State University, 2-155 Wilson Hall, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA
| | - Veronica Zamora-Gutierrez
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK
- Centre for Biodiversity and Environmental Research, University College London, London WC1H 0AG, UK
| |
Collapse
|