drongo bird mimic

Consequently, this is the first study to show that false alarms are functionally deceptive and also demonstrates a novel function for vocal mimicry. Photo credits: T. Flower, M. Boerner.Download figureOpen in new tabDownload powerPoint. This work also provides valuable insight into the benefits of deploying variable mimetic signals in deceptive communication. Birds near Bukit Timah Nature Reserve/Bukit Batok Nature Park. Few people realise that perhaps the world’s most important field research project studying the evolution of cooperative societies is located in South Africa.”, Other species in the area are also habituated to people watching them at distances of less than five metres, including the drongos and another important species from which they steal food, a bird called the pied babbler. Dr Flower said, “I dread to think how many sand dunes I’ve climbed, but it was worth it to get the data I needed.”, The Kuruman River Reserve is the home of a huge long-term study on meerkats that began in 1993 and was documented in the popular TV series Meerkat Manor. When following target species, drongos kleptoparasitized food items from them including insect larvae, reptiles, scorpions and crickets, contributing an average 22 ± 4% to biomass intake per focal drongo. However, just as in Aesop’s fable about the boy who cried wolf, the drongo can make too many false alarms and cause members of the exploited species to wise up. I also recorded whether the meerkat or pied babbler abandoned the food item, defined as dropping the food and moving greater than 1 m towards cover (a bolt hole, or thick vegetation, respectively). The species drongos targeted foraged in the open on the ground and it was therefore possible to see the behaviour of both the drongo under observation and the species that they interacted with at all times. And wouldn’t that be a pity? (c) Pied babblers (n = 20) responded for longer to false (drongo-mimicked) and true glossy starling alarm calls than to non-alarm calls, but did not differ in their response to the false (drongo-mimicked) and true glossy starling alarm calls though glossy starling non-alarm calls elicited a longer response than the drongo non-alarm calls (LMM: χ23 = 119.57, p < 0.001 (see electronic supplementary material S2, table S4)). These false alarms not only influenced the target, but also other group members, which also fled to cover in 110/183 (60%) cases where their response was recorded. The three calls were: (i) a true chink alarm call, (ii) a false chink alarm call, and (iii) a non-alarm call, and the order in which these were played was randomized in a block structure. A few weeks too early / late or a few kilometers off course and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. Celebrate Africa and do good. The drongo, an African bird, deceives other species, including meerkats, by mimicking their alarm calls in order to scare them away and steal their abandoned food, according to a new study published in the 2 May 2014 edition of the journal Science. Dr Flower describes pied babblers as “the bird equivalent of meerkats, with mum and dad doing all the breeding while their offspring stay at home to help raise their younger siblings”. (a) Meerkats (n = 22) responded for longer and (b) were more likely to abandon food in response to playback of true and false chink alarm calls than to non-alarm calls, but did not differ in their response to the true or false chink alarm calls (LMM response time: χ22=48.29, p < 0.001; GLMM abandon food: χ22 = 6.25, p = 0.044 (see electronic supplementary material S2, table S1)). I collected data during two field seasons from March 2008 to July 2008, and April 2009 to September 2009 on a wild population of fork-tailed drongos located in an area of xeric savannah in the South African Kalahari Desert (26°58′ S, 21°49′ E). Fork-tailed drongos appear to use a comparatively sophisticated deceptive trick, since they strategically make alarms in both honest and dishonest contexts. A similar pattern was observed for pied babblers, but there were no significant differences in the likelihood that food was abandoned between calls (figure 2d). (c) Pied babblers (n = 20) responded for longer to playback of true and false chink alarm calls than to non-alarm calls, but did not differ in their response to the true or false chink alarm calls (LMM: χ22 = 41.25, p < 0.001 (see electronic supplementary material S2, table S2)). Several studies have suggested that species use their own species-specific false alarm calls to steal food [9–12]. Meerkats were not more likely to abandon food in response to either true or false alarm calls, but were more likely to do so than in response to non-alarm calls (figure 2b). The duration of the alarm response (seconds), timed from when the meerkat or pied babbler stopped handling the food item (scanned area or fled to cover) to when it resumed foraging, was recorded using a stopwatch. (c) Pied babblers (n = 20) responded for longer to false (drongo-mimicked) and true glossy starling alarm calls than to non-alarm calls, but did not differ in their response to the false (drongo-mimicked) and true glossy starling alarm calls though glossy starling non-alarm calls elicited a longer response than the drongo non-alarm calls (LMM: χ23 = 119.57, p < 0.001 (see electronic supplementary material S2, table S4)). To determine whether drongos made mimicked alarm calls in false contexts, I compared the structural components of one of the suspected false mimic alarm calls made by drongos with true alarm calls of that model species. These results support the three criteria outlined in this study; firstly, drongo false alarm calls were specifically made in kleptoparasitism and rarely made in non-alarm contexts; secondly, the drongo-specific and mimicked calls made by drongos in false alarms were the same as those made in true alarms by drongos and other species; thirdly, target species alarmed in response to both true and false drongo-specific and mimicked alarm calls, which caused them to abandon their food. Bespoke safaris and stories. Of these, six were considered drongo-specific alarm calls since they were recorded from at least 20 of 25 focal drongos, were the call types most likely to be made in both true and false alarms, and were never recorded from other species. Pied babblers were presented with three mealworms impaled on a thorn to increase handling time since the babbler had to remove them before eating. Figure 1. General EnquiriesAdvertisingEditorsTravel with usCEO. During focal observations I recorded all calls made by the focal drongos, other ringed drongos associating with them, and the species that focal drongos were following, from a distance of 2–30 m using a Sennheiser ME67 shotgun microphone coupled to a Marantz PMD660 digital recorder (sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and 16 bit resolution). Playbacks were undertaken to 20 meerkats in 10 groups and 20 pied babblers in 10 groups. Predicted mean values ± 1 s.e. The drongo study populations' range overlapped with the territories of 11 meerkat and 10 pied babbler groups, with which the drongos associated during the study period. Playback experiments were undertaken to determine whether the species that drongos steal food from respond to drongo-specific alarm calls, and whether they distinguish between drongo-specific true and false alarms. Calls were displayed in spectrograms using the program Avisoft SASLab Pro (v. 4.53) (see electronic supplementary material, S1 for details). Experimental playback techniques were identical to those outlined in the drongo-specific alarm call playback experiment with the exception of the preparation of the exemplars used in playbacks (see electronic supplementary material, S1 for details). The Department of Environment and Conservation for Northern Province, SA provided authorization for my work (FAUNA 270/2008) and the Percy Fitzpatrick Institute, University of Cape Town provided ethical permission (2010/V20/TF). It is also one of the most commonly made calls in both true (25 ± 5%, n = 26 drongos) and false alarms (11 ± 3%, n = 27 drongos); and is rarely made in attacks (4 ± 2%, n = 23 drongos). If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Calls were displayed in spectrograms and measurements were taken from them for the same five parameters previously defined in the drongo-specific call analysis. The drongos then make fake alarm calls that mimic other species and cause the meerkats to run for cover, allowing the drongos to swoop in. On 190 occasions drongos fled to cover in a tree or to a high perch while calling. In a classic study, Munn [9] suggested that false alarm calls were used deceptively by two kleptoparasitic bird species, white-winged shrike tanagers (Lanio versicolor) and bluish-slate antshrikes (Thamnomanes scistogynus), when attacking individuals to steal their food. calculated from models are shown.Download figureOpen in new tabDownload powerPointFigure 3. During focal observations I recorded the time drongos spent foraging when alone and when following target species, defined as watching the species at a distance of less than 20 m. I also recorded all foraging attempts; whether the drongo was foraging alone or attempting to kleptoparasitize a food item found by a target individual of another species; and what strategy drongos employed in kleptoparasitism. In 31 ± 5% of these false alarms drongos exclusively made drongo-specific alarm calls; in 42 ± 6% drongos exclusively made suspected mimicked alarm calls; and in 27 ± 6% drongos made a combination of both drongo-specific and suspected mimicked alarm calls.

Sony C800g Buy, How Fast Does A Giant Sequoia Grow, Se Electronics Z5600a Mk1, Braised Pork Ribs In Oyster Sauce, Bali Thai Bento, Dell Latitude E6430 Core I7 Price In Bangladesh, Sealy Omniplush Crib Mattress, Chicken Manure Benefits, Goyard Bag Colors 2020, Uc San Diego School Of Medicine Ranking, Manna Sushi Menu Colonia, Nj,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *