Click here to view linked References heterospecifics might provide insights about why some species encode information about 24 predator threat in multiple ways. 25 26

Individual vocal recognition (IVR) has been well studied in mammals and birds. These studies have primarily delved into understanding IVR in specific limited contexts (e.g. parent–offspring and mate recognition) where individuals discriminate one individual from all others. However, little research has examined IVR in more socially demanding circumstances, such as when an individual discriminates all individuals in their social or familial group apart. In this review, we describe what IVR is and suggest splitting studies of IVR into two general types based on what questions they answer (IVR-singular, and IVR-multiple). We explain how we currently test for IVR, and many of the benefits and drawbacks of different methods. We address why IVR is so prevalent in the animal kingdom, and the circumstances in which it is often found. Finally, we explain current weaknesses in IVR research including temporality, specificity, and taxonomic bias, and testing paradigms, and provide some solutions to address these weaknesses. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Signal detection theory in recognition systems: from evolving models to experimental tests’.

Many animals alter their anti-predator behavior in accordance to the threat level of a predator. While much research has examined variation in mobbing responses to different predators, few studies have investigated how anti-predator behavior is affected by changes in a predator’s own state or behavior. We examined the effect of sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) behavior on the mobbing response of wild blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) using robotic taxidermy sparrowhawks. We manipulated whether the simulated predator moved its head, produced vocalizations, or held a taxidermy blue tit in its talons. When any sparrowhawk model was present, blue tits decreased foraging and increased anti-predator behavior and vocalizations. Additionally, each manipulation of the model predator’s state (moving, vocalizing, or the presence of a dead conspecific) impacted different types of blue tit anti-predator behavior and vocalizations. These results indicate that different components of mobbing vary according to the specific state of a given predator—beyond its presence or absence—and suggest that each might play a different role in the overall mobbing response. Last, our results indicate that using more life-like predator stimuli—those featuring simple head movements and audio playback of vocalizations—changes how prey respond to the predator; these ‘robo-raptor’ models provide a powerful tool to provide increased realism in simulated predator encounters without sacrificing experimental control.Significance statementAnti-predatory behavior is often modulated by the threat level posed by a particular predator. While much research has tested how different types of predators change prey behavior, few experiments have examined how predator behavior affects anti-predatory responses of prey. By experimentally manipulating robotic predators, we show that blue tits not only respond to the presence of a sparrowhawk, by decreasing feeding and increasing anti-predator behavior and vocalizations, but that they vary specific anti-predator behaviors when encountering differently behaving predators (moving, vocalizing, or those with captured prey), suggesting that prey pay attention to their predators’ state and behavior.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00265-017-2361-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Animal alarm calls can contain detailed information about a predator’s threat, and heterospecific eavesdropping on these signals creates vast communication networks. While eavesdropping is common, this indirect public information is often less reliable than direct predator observations. Red-breasted nuthatches (Sitta canadensis) eavesdrop on chickadee mobbing calls and vary their behaviour depending on the threat encoded in those calls. Whether nuthatches propagate this indirect information in their own calls remains unknown. Here we test whether nuthatches propagate direct (high and low threat raptor vocalizations) or indirect (high and low threat chickadee mobbing calls) information about predators differently. When receiving direct information, nuthatches vary their mobbing calls to reflect the predator’s threat. However, when nuthatches obtain indirect information, they produce calls with intermediate acoustic features, suggesting a more generic alarm signal. This suggests nuthatches are sensitive to the source and reliability of information and selectively propagate information in their own mobbing calls.