Animals acquire information produced by other species to reduce uncertainty and avoid predators. Mixed‐species flocks (MSFs) of birds are ubiquitous in forest ecosystems and structured, in part, around interspecific information transfer, with “nuclear” species providing information that other species eavesdrop on. We hypothesized that in a seasonal tropical forest, the amount of information produced by birds about predation would be dynamic and particularly would decrease inside MSFs when the nuclear species leave MSFs to breed. We obtained baseline information on MSF encounter rate and species composition along established sampling routes over 9 months near the Sino‐Vietnamese border. We also conducted three experiments to quantify information produced by different species in response to typical predator encounters, including a moving predator stimulus presented inside of MSFs, and a stationary predator model presented both inside and outside of MSFs. MSFs were much less frequent in the breeding season with fewer individuals of the nuclear species, David's Fulvetta (Alcippe davidi), participating, though the diversity of other species remained stable. Fulvettas were the dominant producer of alarm‐related information both to the moving and stationary stimuli in MSFs and were also among the most active mobbers to stimuli presented outside of MSFs. In the breeding season, they tended to call less to the moving stimulus, and substantially fewer individuals responded to the in‐flock stationary stimulus. Other species increased their own information production at stationary predator stimuli (inside and outside of MSFs) during the breeding season, perhaps due to their increased investment in offspring during this time. Yet even during the breeding season, David's Fulvetta remained the highest producer of information about predators in MSFs. Hence, while we show that information production in MSFs can be somewhat dynamic, we describe a continually asymmetric communication system, in which a nuclear species is important to the whole community.

No abstract

Animal cooperation in the wild often involves multiple individuals that must tolerate each other in close proximity. However, most cooperation experiments in the lab are done with two animals, that are often also physically separated. Such experiments are useful for answering some pertinent questions, for example about the understanding of the role of the partner and strategies of partner control, but say little about factors determining successful cooperation with multiple partners in group settings. We explored the influence of dominance, rank distance, tolerance, affiliation, and coordination by testing kea parrots with a box requiring two, three, or four chains to be pulled simultaneously to access food rewards. The reward could be divided unevenly, but not monopolized completely. Eventually dyadic, triadic, and tetradic cooperation tasks were solved, showing that non-human animals are capable of tetradic cooperation in an experimental setup. Starting with two chains, we found that in a dyad monopolization of the box by the highest-ranking bird was the largest obstacle preventing successful cooperation. High-ranking birds learned to restrain themselves from monopolizing the box during a single session in which monopolization was hindered by the presence of a large number of birds. Thereafter, restraint by dominants remained the strongest factor determining success in the first trial in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic setups. The probability of success increased with the degree of restraint shown by all dominant subjects present. Previous experience with the task contributed to success in subsequent sessions, while increasing rank distance reduced success notably in the four-chain setup.

Vocalizations that signal predation risk such as alarm calls provide crucial information for the survival of group-living individuals. However, alarm calling may attract the predator’s attention and, to avoid this cost, animals can opt for alternative strategies to indicate danger, such as ‘adaptive silence’, which is the cessation of vocalizations. We investigate here whether abrupt contact call cessation would provoke alarm responses, or would reinforce the signal given by an alarm call. In an aviary setting, we conducted playback experiments with a group-living passerine, the Swinhoe’s white-eye, Zosterops simplex. We found that birds did not respond to a sudden call cessation, nor did they have a stronger response to alarm calls followed by silence than to alarm calls followed by contact calls. Confirming previous work investigating contact call rate, it appears that in this species contact calls encode information about social factors but not environmental conditions.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

Cooperation is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom as it aims to maximize benefits through joint action. Selection, however, may also favor competitive behaviors that could violate cooperation. How animals mitigate competition is hotly debated, with particular interest in primates and little attention paid thus far to nonprimates. Using a loose-string pulling apparatus, we explored cooperative and competitive behavior, as well as mitigation of the latter, in semi-wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Our results showed that elephants first maintained a very high cooperation rate (average = 80.8% across 45 sessions). Elephants applied “block,” “fight back,” “leave,” “move side,” and “submission” as mitigation strategies and adjusted these strategies according to their affiliation and rank difference with competition initiators. They usually applied a “fight back” mitigation strategy as a sanction when competition initiators were low ranking or when they had a close affiliation, but were submissive if the initiators were high ranking or when they were not closely affiliated. However, when the food reward was limited, the costly competitive behaviors (“monopoly” and “fight”) increased significantly, leading to a rapid breakdown in cooperation. The instability of elephant cooperation as a result of benefit reduction mirrors that of human society, suggesting that similar fundamental principles may underlie the evolution of cooperation across species.