Vocal Complexity in Meerkats and Other Mongoose Species

Manser, Marta B.; Jansen, David; Graw, Beke; Hollén, Linda; Bousquet, Christophe A. H.; Furrer, Roman D.; Roux, Aliza le

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800286-5.00006-7

Cited by 76 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 103 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Manser et al. ). Accordingly to this hypothesis, the highly social lifestyle of wild boars (Meynhardt ) predicts continuous acoustic variation, while the fact that they often occupy dense, closed habitats (Wilson & Mittermeier ) predicts discrete call types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Marler (1975) proposed that the evolution of graded and discrete signals depends on a species' habitat and social structure. In particular, graded acoustic signals have been suggested to prevail in species living in open habitats with frequent close range interactions occurring between conspecifics (Marler 1976;Keenan et al 2013;Manser et al 2014). Accordingly to this hypothesis, the highly social lifestyle of wild boars (Meynhardt 1990) predicts continuous acoustic variation, while the fact that they often occupy dense, closed habitats (Wilson & Mittermeier 2011) predicts discrete call types.…”

Section: Hierarchical Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural Classification of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Vocalizations

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining whether a species' vocal communication system is graded or discrete requires definition of its vocal repertoire. In this context, research on domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) vocalizations, for example, has led to significant advances in our understanding of communicative functions. Despite their close relation to domestic pigs, little is known about wild boar (Sus scrofa) vocalizations. The few existing studies, conducted in the 1970s, relied on visual inspections of spectrograms to quantify acoustic parameters and lacked statistical analysis. Here, we use objective signal processing techniques and advanced statistical approaches to classify 616 calls recorded from semi‐free ranging animals. Based on four spectral and temporal acoustic parameters—quartile Q25, duration, spectral flux, and spectral flatness—extracted from a multivariate analysis, we refine and extend the conclusions drawn from previous work and present a statistically validated classification of the wild boar vocal repertoire into four call types: grunts, grunt‐squeals, squeals, and trumpets. While the majority of calls could be sorted into these categories using objective criteria, we also found evidence supporting a graded interpretation of some wild boar vocalizations as acoustically continuous, with the extremes representing discrete call types. The use of objective criteria based on modern techniques and statistics in respect to acoustic continuity advances our understanding of vocal variation. Integrating our findings with recent studies on domestic pig vocal behavior and emotions, we emphasize the importance of grunt‐squeals for acoustic approaches to animal welfare and underline the need of further research investigating the role of domestication on animal vocal communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Hierarchical Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Classification of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Vocalizations

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially sophisticated among callitrichid monkeys is their vocal communication (Snowdon, , ; Zuberbühler, ; Borjon & Ghazanfar, ; Chow et al ., ; Takahashi et al ., ), and in fact we predict that the most pervasive differences between cooperative and independent breeders may well be found in communicative contexts (see also Manser et al ., ). Our literature review (B&vS) suggested that these are systematic patterns, even though the scarcity of sufficiently comparable data from different species made this conclusion preliminary.…”

Section: Immediate Consequences: Proximate Mechanisms and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding

Burkart

Schaik

2016

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thornton & McAuliffe (2015) recently questioned the hypothesis that cooperative breeding has a variety of socio-cognitive consequences, invoking both logical and empirical arguments. The cooperative breeding hypothesis (CBH) posits that the immediate tasks associated with extensive allomaternal care require motivational proximate mechanisms, such as increased social tolerance or proactive prosociality which, as a side-effect, also can facilitate performance in socio-cognitive tasks. Eventually, over evolutionary time this constellation may also, under specific conditions, facilitate increases in brain size. Thus, the CBH is not merely a modified version of the social brain hypothesis, as suggested by Thornton & McAuliffe, which would posit that a species has to be particularly smart to engage in cooperative breeding. In this reply, we first clarify these conceptual issues and then systematically address their criticism of the empirical evidence. We conclude that the empirical evidence for the CBH is strong in primates, but that future work on lineages other than primates is required to assess its generality.

show abstract

“…Inasmuch as larger social groups are more complex than smaller social groups, we might therefore predict the chick‐a‐dee call of bridled titmice to be quite diverse in structure, according to predictions of the social complexity hypothesis for communication (Freeberg, Dunbar, & Ord, ). Similar comparative work in the Herpestidae group of mongoose and meerkat species, for example, has revealed important relationships between the species’ solitary/social foraging status, group size, and social structure with the vocal repertoire size observed in those species (Manser et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Similar comparative work in the Herpestidae group of mongoose and meerkat species, for example, has revealed important relationships between the species' solitary/social foraging status, group size, and social structure with the vocal repertoire size observed in those species (Manser et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Variation in chick‐a‐dee calls of bridled titmice (Baeolophus wollweberi): Frequent use of non‐combinatorial calls in a combinatorial calling system

Jung

Freeberg

2017

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chick‐a‐dee calls of Poecile (chickadee) and Baeolophus (titmouse) species are complex in terms of the structural composition of note types and the diversity of messages. Studies so far have mainly focused on the calls of various chickadee and just one titmouse species—the tufted titmouse (B. bicolor). To begin to address this lack of titmouse data, our study investigated variation in note composition of calls of bridled titmice (B. wollweberi). We obtained calls from 26 flocks in the Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona in the overwintering flocking period. Bridled titmice produce proportionally more non‐combinatorial call variants than combinatorial call variants. The number of the single noted calls furthermore exceeded the number of multinote calls. In general, structural variation in the combinatorial calls appears to be comparable to calls of better‐studied chickadees and of tufted titmice, although bridled titmice appear to have a unique call length distribution. We also analyzed some behavioral associations with call variation and found that flight behavior and close interactions between individuals were associated with use of specific note types. Finally, we found microgeographic variation in note type use in these calls. We discuss some possible explanations for call complexity in this species.

show abstract

Vocal Complexity in Meerkats and Other Mongoose Species

Cited by 76 publications

References 103 publications

Structural Classification of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Vocalizations

Structural Classification of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Vocalizations

Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding

Variation in chick‐a‐dee calls of bridled titmice (Baeolophus wollweberi): Frequent use of non‐combinatorial calls in a combinatorial calling system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About