Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 354-361

  Goodale, Eben ^a   Beauchamp, Guy ^b   Magrath, Robert D ^c   Nieh, James C ^d   Ruxton, Graeme D ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBO   (Sri Lanka)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d University of California San Diego   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AVOIDANCE REACTION; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; ENVIRONMENTAL CUE; HABITAT SELECTION; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; SIGNAL; TROPHIC LEVEL;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ECOSYSTEM; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REVIEW;

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

EID: 77954651383     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.002     Document Type: Review

References (100)

1. Dall S.R.X., et al. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20:187-193.
2. Danchin E., et al. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 2004, 305:487-491.
3. Valone T.J. From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007, 62:1-14.
4. Rainey H.J., et al. Hornbills can distinguish between primate alarm calls. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 2004, 271:755-759.
5. Templeton C.N., Greene E. Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104:5479-5482.
6. Bell M.B.V., et al. The value of constant surveillance in a risky environment. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 2009, 276:2997-3005.
7. Fallow P.M., Magrath R.D. Eavesdropping on other species: mutual interspecific understanding of urgency information in avian alarm calls. Anim. Behav. 2010, 79:411-471.
8. Seppänen J.-T., et al. Social information use is a process across time, space and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 2007, 88:1622-1633.
9. Morin P.J. Community Ecology 1999, Blackwell Science.
10. Caro T.M. Pursuit-deterrence revisited. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10:500-503.
11. Morales M.A., et al. Acoustic alarm signaling facilitates predator protection of treehoppers by mutualist ant bodyguards. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 2008, 275:1935-1941.
12. Graves G.R., Gotelli N.J. Assembly of avian mixed-species flocks in Amazonia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1993, 90:1388-1391.
13. Maynard Smith J., Harper D. Animal Signals 2003, Oxford University Press.
14. Caro T.M. Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals 2005, University of Chicago Press.
15. Lea A.J., et al. Heterospecific eavesdropping in a nonsocial species. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:1041-1046.
16. Magrath R.D., et al. An avian eavesdropping network: alarm signal reliability and heterospecific response. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:745-752.
17. Vitousek M.N., et al. Heterospecific alarm call recognition in a non-vocal reptile. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3:632-634.
18. Wisenden B.D., Stacey N.E. Fish semiochemicals and the evolution of communication networks. Animal Communication Networks 2005, Cambridge University Press, pp. 540-567. P.K. McGregor (Ed.).
19. Ferrari M.C.O., Chivers D.P. Cultural learning of predator recognition in mixed-species assemblages of frogs: the effect of tutor-to-observer ratio. Anim. Behav. 2008, 75:1921-1925.
20. Schorkopf D.L.P., et al. Mandibular gland secretions of meliponine worker bees: further evidence for their role in interspecific and intraspecific defence and aggression and against their role in food source signalling. J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 212:1153-1162.
21. Nolen M.T., Lukas J.R. Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice. Anim. Behav. 2009, 77:1137-1146.
22. Gautier-Hion A., Tutin C.E.G. Simultaneous attack by adult males of a polyspecific troop of monkeys against a crowned hawk eagle. Folia Primatol. 1988, 51:149-151.
23. Forsman J.T., Mönkkönen M. Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Anim. Behav. 2001, 62:1067-1073.
24. Richter M.R., Tisch V.L. Resource choice of social wasps: influence of presence, size and species of resident wasps. Insect. Soc. 1999, 46:131-136.
25. Stout J.C., Goulson D. The use of conspecific and interspecific scent marks by foraging bumblebees and honeybees. Anim. Behav. 2001, 62:183-189.
26. Reader T., et al. Inter-order interactions between flower-visiting insects: foraging bees avoid flowers previously visited by hoverflies. J. Insect Behav. 2005, 18:51-57.
27. Yokio T., et al. The use of heterospecific scent marks by the sweat bee Halictus aerarius. Naturwissenschaften 2007, 94:1021-1024.
28. Slaa E.J., et al. The use of field-based social information in eusocial foragers: local enhancement among nestmates and heterospecifics in stingless bees. Ecol. Entomol. 2003, 28:369-379.
29. Nieh J.C., et al. Olfactory eavesdropping by a competitively foraging stingless bee, Trigona spinipes. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci 2004, 271:1633-1640.
30. Whiting M.J., Greeff J.M. Use of heterospecific cues by the lizard Platysaurus broadleyi for food location. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1999, 45:420-423.
31. Menzel F., et al. Selective interspecific tolerance in tropical Crematogaster-Camponotus associations. Anim. Behav. 2008, 75:837-846.
32. Buckley N.J. Food finding and the influence of information, local enhancement, and communal roosting on foraging success of North American vultures. Auk 1996, 113:473-488.
33. Camphuysen C.J., Webb A. Multi-species feeding associations in North Sea seabirds: jointly exploiting a patchy environment. Ardea 1999, 87:177-198.
34. Sridhar H., et al. Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78:337-347.
35. Ward A.J.W., et al. Mixed-species shoaling in fish: the sensory mechanisms and costs of shoal choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2002, 52:182-187.
36. Stensland E., et al. Mixed species groups in mammals. Mamm. Rev. 2003, 33:205-223.
37. Rasa O.A.E. Dwarf mongoose and hornbill mutualism in the Taru Desert, Kenya. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1983, 12:181-190.
38. Ward P., Zahavi A. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as " information-centres" for food-finding. Ibis 1973, 115:517-534.
39. Richner H., Heeb P. Is the information center hypothesis a flop?. Adv. Stud. Behav. 1995, 24:1-45.
40. Krebs J.R. Social learning and the significance of mixed-species flocks of chickadees (Parus spp.). Can. J. Zool. 1973, 51:1275-1288.
41. Caldwell G.S. Attraction to tropical mixed-species heron flocks: proximate mechanism and consequences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1981, 8:99-103.
42. Coolen I., et al. Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 2003, 270:2413-2419.
43. Karplus I., et al. Social facilitation of learning in mixed-species schools of common carp Cyprinus carpio L. and Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.). J. Fish Biol. 2007, 71:1023-1034.
44. Burger J. Grebes nesting in gull colonies: protective associations and early warning. Am. Nat. 1984, 123:327-337.
45. Sullivan K.A. Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour 1984, 91:294-311.
46. Ragusa-Netto J. Vigilance towards raptors by nuclear species in bird mixed flocks in a Brazilian savannah. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 2002, 37:219-226.
47. Greig-Smith P.W. The role of alarm responses in the formation of mixed-species flocks of heathland birds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1981, 8:7-10.
48. Noë R., Bshary R. The formation of red colobus-diana monkey associations under predation pressure from chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 1997, 264:253-259.
49. Fitzgibbon C.D. Mixed-species grouping in Thomson's and Grant's gazelles: the antipredator benefits. Anim. Behav. 1990, 39:1116-1126.
50. Waite T.A., Grubb T.C. Copying of foraging locations in mixed-species flocks of temperate-deciduous woodland birds: an experimental study. Condor 1988, 90:132-140.
51. Karplus I. The association between gobiid fishes and burrowing alpheid shrimps. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 1987, 25:507-562.
52. Diego-Rasilla F.J., Luengo R.M. Heterospecific call recognition and phonotaxis in the orientation behavior of the marbled newt, Triturus marmoratus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2004, 55:556-560.
53. Pupin F., et al. Discrimination of toad calls by smooth newts: support for the heterospecific attraction hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:1683-1690.
54. Thomson R.L., et al. Positive interactions between migrant and resident birds: testing the heterospecific attraction hypothesis. Oecologia 2003, 134:431-438.
55. Mukhin A., et al. Acoustic information as a distant cue for habitat recognition by nocturnally migrating passerines during landfall. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:716-723.
56. Fletcher R.J. Social information and community dynamics: nontarget effects from simulating social cues for management. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18:1764-1773.
57. Parejo D., et al. The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality?. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16:96-105.
58. Hromada M., et al. Settling decisions and heterospecific social information use in shrikes. PLOS ONE 2008, 3:e3930. 10.1371/journal.pone.0003930.
59. Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L. Principles of Animal Communication 1998, Sinauer Associates.
60. Hingee M., Magrath R.D. Flights of fear: a mechanical wing whistle sounds the alarm in a flocking bird. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 2009, 276:4173-4179.
61. Beauchamp G., Ruxton G.D. False alarms and the evolution of antipredator vigilance. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:1199-1206.
62. Munn C.A. Birds that 'cry wolf'. Nature 1986, 391:143-145.
63. Ridley A.R., et al. Interspecific audience effects on the alarm-calling behaviour of a kleptoparasitic bird. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3:589-591.
64. Satischandra S.H.K., et al. Assessing " false" alarms by a drongo (Dicrurus paradiseus) in mixed-species bird flocks. Behav. Ecol. 2010, 21:396-403.
65. Stephens D.W. Variance and the value of information. Am. Nat. 1989, 134:128-140.
66. Roell A., Bossema I. A comparison of nest defense by jackdaws, rooks, magpies and crows. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1982, 11:1-6.
67. Beauchamp G. A spatial model of producing and scrounging. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76:1935-1942.
68. Nieh J.C. Convergent evolution of food recruitment mechanisms in bees and wasps. Organization of Insect Societies: From Genome to Sociocomplexity 2009, 264-286. Harvard University Press. J. Gadau, J.H. Fewell (Eds.).
69. Goodale E., Kotagama S.W. Vocal mimicry by a passerine bird attracts other species involved in mixed-species flocks. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:471-477.
70. Kostan K.M. The evolution of mutualistic interspecific communication: assessment and management across species. J. Comp. Psychol. 2002, 116:206-209.
71. Thompson A.R. Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations. Oecologia 2005, 143:61-69.
72. Magrath R., et al. A mutual understanding? Interspecific responses by birds to each other's aerial alarm calls. Behav. Ecol. 2007, 18:944-951.
73. Goodale E., Kotagama S.W. Alarm calling in Sri Lankan mixed-species bird flocks. Auk 2005, 122:108-120.
74. Goodale E., Kotagama S.W. Response to conspecific and heterospecific alarm calls in mixed-species bird flocks of a Sri Lankan rainforest. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:887-894.
75. Dolby A.S., Grubb T.C. Social context affects risk taking by a satellite species in a mixed-species foraging group. Behav. Ecol. 2000, 11:110-114.
76. Waser P.M. " Chance" and mixed-species associations. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1984, 15:197-202.
77. Krause J., et al. Animal social networks: an introduction. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:967-973.
78. Groom M.J., et al. Principles of Conservation Biology 2006, Sinauer Associates.
79. Simberloff D. Flagships, umbrella, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era?. Biol. Conserv. 1998, 83:247-257.
80. Diamond J.M. Assembly of species communities. Ecology and Evolution of Communities 1975, 342-444. Harvard University Press. M.L. Cody, J.M. Diamond (Eds.).
81. Hubbell S.P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography 2001, Princeton University Press.
82. Morse D.H. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecol. Monogr. 1970, 40:119-168.
83. Phelps S.M., et al. The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav. Ecol. 2007, 18:108-114.
84. Gautier-Hion A., et al. Monospecific vs polyspecific life: a comparative study of foraging and antipredatory tactics in a community of Cercopithecus monkeys. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1983, 12:325-335.
85. Powell G.V.N. On the possible contribution of mixed-species flocks to species richness in neotropical avifaunas. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1989, 24:387-393.
86. Quérouil S., et al. Why do dolphins form mixed-species associations in the Azores?. Ethology 2008, 114:1183-1194.
87. Moynihan M. The organization and probable evolution of some mixed-species flocks of Neotropical birds. Smithson. Misc. Coll. 1962, 143:1-140.
88. Krause J., Ruxton G.D. Living in Groups 2002, Oxford University Press.
89. Brown G.E., et al. Nitrogen oxides elicit antipredator responses in juvenile channel catfish, but not in convict cichlids or rainbow trout: conservation of the ostariophysan alarm phermone. J. Chem. Ecol. 2003, 29:1781-1796.
90. Ficken M.S. Call similarities among mixed-species flock associates. Southwest. Nat. 2000, 45:154-158.
91. Landeau L., Terborgh J. Oddity and the confusion effect in predation. Anim. Behav. 1986, 34:1372-1380.
92. Barnard C.J. Social mimicry and interspecific exploitation. Am. Nat. 1982, 120:411-415.
93. Clark C.W., Mangel M. Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain environment. Am. Nat. 1984, 123:626-641.
94. Dornhaus A., Franks N.R. Colony size affects collective decision-making in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Insect. Soc. 2006, 53:420-427.
95. Goodale E., Beauchamp G. The relationship between leadership and gregariousness in mixed-species bird flocks. J. Avian. Biol. 2010, 41:99-103.
96. Lichtenberg E., et al. Behavioral suites mediate group-level foraging dynamics in communities of tropical stingless bees. Insect. Soc. 2010, 57:105-113.
97. Griesser M., Ekman J. Nepotistic mobbing behaviour in the Siberian jay, Perisoreus infaustas. Anim. Behav 2005, 69:345-352.
98. Krams I., et al. Mobbing behaviour: reciprocity-based co-operation in breeding Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Ibis 2006, 148:50-54.
99. Silverman E.D., et al. Nearest neighbors as foraging cues: information transfer in a patchy environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2004, 277:25-35.
100. Saracco J.F., et al. How do frugivores track resources? Insights from spatial analyses of bird foraging in a tropical forest. Oecologia 2004, 139:235-245.