Culturally determined interspecies communication between humans and honeyguides

Co-cultures: exploring interspecies culture among humans and other animals

The concept of 'co-culture' is introduced as a novel framework for understanding the mutual cultural evolution between animal species, including, but not only, humans. It explores the dynamics of interspecies interactions, particularly in how different species influence each other's behavioural and cognitive adaptations. Various instances of interspecies cultural exchange are highlighted, such as the acquisition of medicinal plants from animals resulting in a shared medicinal culture, adaptive behaviours of urban wildlife, and cooperative behaviours between animal species. Co-culture challenges the notion of species-specific culture, underscoring the complexity and interconnectedness of human and animal societies, and between animal societies. Further research into co-culture is advocating and emphasising its implications for conservation, urban planning, and a deeper understanding of animal cognition and behaviour.

Species diversity and interspecific information flow

Interspecific information flow is known to affect individual fitness, population dynamics and community assembly, but there has been less study of how species diversity affects information flow and thereby ecosystem functioning and services. We address this question by first examining differences among species in the sensitivity, accuracy, transmissibility, detectability and value of the cues and signals they produce, and in how they receive, store and use information derived from heterospecifics. We then review how interspecific information flow occurs in communities, involving a diversity of species and sensory modes, and how this flow can affect ecosystem-level functions, such as decomposition, seed dispersal or algae removal on coral reefs. We highlight evidence that some keystone species are particularly critical as a source of information used by eavesdroppers, and so have a disproportionate effect on information flow. Such keystone species include community informants producing signals, particularly about predation risk, that influence other species' landscapes of fear, and aggregation initiators creating cues or signals about resources. We suggest that the presence of keystone species means that there will likely be a positive relationship in many communities between species diversity and information through a 'sampling effect', in which larger pools of species are more likely to include the keystone species by chance. We then consider whether the number and relative abundance of species, irrespective of the presence of keystone species, matter to interspecific information flow; on this issue, the theory is less developed, and the evidence scant and indirect. Higher diversity could increase the quantity or quality of information that is used by eavesdroppers because redundancy increases the reliability of information or because the species provide complementary information. Alternatively, there could be a lack of a relationship between species diversity and information if there is widespread information parasitism where users are not sources, or if information sourced from heterospecifics is of lower value than that gained personally or sourced from conspecifics. Recent research suggests that species diversity does have information-modulated community and ecosystem consequences, especially in birds, such as the diversity of species at feeders increasing resource exploitation, or the number of imitated species increasing responses to vocal mimics. A first step for future research includes comprehensive observations of information flow among different taxa and habitats. Then studies should investigate whether species diversity influences the cumulative quality or quantity of information at the community level, and consequently ecosystem-level processes. An applied objective is to conserve species in part for their value as sources of information for other species, including for humans.

A synthesis of coevolution across levels of biological organization

In evolutionary ecology, coevolution is typically defined as reciprocal evolution of interacting species. However, outside the context of interacting species, the term "coevolution" is also used at levels of biological organization within species (e.g., between males and females, between cells, and between genes or proteins). Furthermore, although evolution is typically defined as "genetic change over time", coevolution need not involve genetic changes in the interacting parties, since cultures can also evolve. In this review, I propose that coevolution be defined more broadly as "reciprocal adaptive evolution at any level of biological organisation". The classification of reciprocal evolution at all levels of biological organization as coevolution would maintain consistency in terminology. More importantly, the broader definition should facilitate greater integration of coevolution research across disciplines. For example, principles usually discussed only in the context of coevolution between species or coevolution between genes (e.g., tight and diffuse coevolution, and compensatory coevolution, respectively) could be more readily applied to new fields. The application of coevolutionary principles to new contexts could also provide benefits to society, for instance in deducing the dynamics of coevolution between cancer cells and cells of the human immune system.

Human-wild bird cooperation

Honeyguides learn distinct signals made by honey hunters from different cultures.