Eavesdropping and cue denial in avian acoustic signals

William Searcy, Ken Yasukawa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnimal Behaviour
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Feb 29 2016

Fingerprint

animal communication
acoustics
song
predators
animals
predator
antipredatory behavior
animal
alarm

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 journalArticle

@article{b30f6adf1ce44efe9e5949cf580291fb,
title = "Eavesdropping and cue denial in avian acoustic signals",
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.",
keywords = "Acoustic adaptation, Aerial alarm, Begging call, Cue denial, Eavesdropping, Soft song",
author = "William Searcy and Ken Yasukawa",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.07.018",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Animal Behaviour",
issn = "0003-3472",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

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 -