Abstract
Although some signals seem adapted to maximize transmission of cues to intended receivers, others appear to have been selected to deny specific types of cues to unwanted receivers. We review three categories of avian vocal signals that have been suggested to show adaptation for cue denial: aerial predator alarm calls, begging calls, and soft songs and calls. Evidence supports the conclusion that aerial alarm calls are adapted to deny localization cues and that begging calls and soft songs are adapted to deny detection. Selection for denial of cues in acoustic signals has also been documented in a variety of other animals. In summary, eavesdropping by unwanted receivers is often as important in shaping the structure of acoustic signals as is selection for transmission to intended receivers.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Journal | Animal Behaviour |
| DOIs | |
| State | Accepted/In press - Feb 29 2016 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Acoustic adaptation
- Aerial alarm
- Begging call
- Cue denial
- Eavesdropping
- Soft song
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Animal Science and Zoology
Cite this
Eavesdropping and cue denial in avian acoustic signals. / Searcy, William; Yasukawa, Ken.
In: Animal Behaviour, 29.02.2016.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Eavesdropping and cue denial in avian acoustic signals
AU - Searcy, William
AU - Yasukawa, Ken
PY - 2016/2/29
Y1 - 2016/2/29
N2 - Although some signals seem adapted to maximize transmission of cues to intended receivers, others appear to have been selected to deny specific types of cues to unwanted receivers. We review three categories of avian vocal signals that have been suggested to show adaptation for cue denial: aerial predator alarm calls, begging calls, and soft songs and calls. Evidence supports the conclusion that aerial alarm calls are adapted to deny localization cues and that begging calls and soft songs are adapted to deny detection. Selection for denial of cues in acoustic signals has also been documented in a variety of other animals. In summary, eavesdropping by unwanted receivers is often as important in shaping the structure of acoustic signals as is selection for transmission to intended receivers.
AB - Although some signals seem adapted to maximize transmission of cues to intended receivers, others appear to have been selected to deny specific types of cues to unwanted receivers. We review three categories of avian vocal signals that have been suggested to show adaptation for cue denial: aerial predator alarm calls, begging calls, and soft songs and calls. Evidence supports the conclusion that aerial alarm calls are adapted to deny localization cues and that begging calls and soft songs are adapted to deny detection. Selection for denial of cues in acoustic signals has also been documented in a variety of other animals. In summary, eavesdropping by unwanted receivers is often as important in shaping the structure of acoustic signals as is selection for transmission to intended receivers.
KW - Acoustic adaptation
KW - Aerial alarm
KW - Begging call
KW - Cue denial
KW - Eavesdropping
KW - Soft song
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995947133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995947133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.07.018
DO - 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.07.018
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84995947133
JO - Animal Behaviour
JF - Animal Behaviour
SN - 0003-3472
ER -