Miriam Kuspiel, Sjouke A. Kingma, Heleen Vermeulen, Marc Naguib
Animal vocalisations are widely used to signal strength or motivation of a caller in competitive interactions, such as in territorial defence. Substantial understanding of signalling functions in territorial conflicts is based on singing by male songbirds. Yet, in many species, both pair members call during territorial conflicts, as well as in predator-induced situations, leading to complex signalling interactions in which calls overlap or alternate. This raises the question as to whether or not variation in how individuals in pairs time their calls is perceived as meaningful by receivers. Here, we tested with playback experiments whether Eurasian magpies (Pica pica), a species producing alarm calls (so-called chatter calls) in territorial defence, respond stronger to simulated pair-intruders who overlap their calls with each other than to those who alternate them. Magpies emitted a significantly longer first chatter calls in response to playback with overlapping calls but chattered significantly sooner and approached the loudspeakers significantly more closely in response to playbacks of alternating (and therefore longer) call sequences. These findings exemplify that the timing of calls by pair members matters, but in more complex ways than we predicted. The overlapping playback appeared to trigger a longer yet later initial chatter response and a weaker approach response, suggesting that the different ways in which magpies respond reflect different levels of arousal or defence strategies. The results may also reflect uncertainty by receivers due to a potential mismatch between signalled and perceived information: While overlapping calls may signal high arousal by both callers, a longer alternating sequence could be perceived as a more aroused longer signal. These findings expand on classical experiments on call function, suggesting that pairs can vary the message by coordinating their alarm calls in different ways, similar to how duetting pairs time their song contributions in advertisement signalling.
{"title":"Pair-Coordinated Calling: Eurasian Magpies Respond Differently to Simulated Intruder Pairs That Overlap or Alternate Their Calls","authors":"Miriam Kuspiel, Sjouke A. Kingma, Heleen Vermeulen, Marc Naguib","doi":"10.1111/eth.13515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13515","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Animal vocalisations are widely used to signal strength or motivation of a caller in competitive interactions, such as in territorial defence. Substantial understanding of signalling functions in territorial conflicts is based on singing by male songbirds. Yet, in many species, both pair members call during territorial conflicts, as well as in predator-induced situations, leading to complex signalling interactions in which calls overlap or alternate. This raises the question as to whether or not variation in how individuals in pairs time their calls is perceived as meaningful by receivers. Here, we tested with playback experiments whether Eurasian magpies (<i>Pica pica</i>), a species producing alarm calls (so-called chatter calls) in territorial defence, respond stronger to simulated pair-intruders who overlap their calls with each other than to those who alternate them. Magpies emitted a significantly longer first chatter calls in response to playback with overlapping calls but chattered significantly sooner and approached the loudspeakers significantly more closely in response to playbacks of alternating (and therefore longer) call sequences. These findings exemplify that the timing of calls by pair members matters, but in more complex ways than we predicted. The overlapping playback appeared to trigger a longer yet later initial chatter response and a weaker approach response, suggesting that the different ways in which magpies respond reflect different levels of arousal or defence strategies. The results may also reflect uncertainty by receivers due to a potential mismatch between signalled and perceived information: While overlapping calls may signal high arousal by both callers, a longer alternating sequence could be perceived as a more aroused longer signal. These findings expand on classical experiments on call function, suggesting that pairs can vary the message by coordinating their alarm calls in different ways, similar to how duetting pairs time their song contributions in advertisement signalling.</p>","PeriodicalId":50494,"journal":{"name":"Ethology","volume":"130 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eth.13515","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The overarching goal of neurobiology is to understand how complex behaviors are generated by the nervous system. The behavior of each species, and the brain that controls it, is shaped by the historical and current state of the environment that they inhabit. This fact is juxtaposed with the reductionist approach of neuroscience that isolates animals from their natural environment. Understanding how brains evolved to orchestrate the myriads of natural behaviors an animal performs in response to its environment requires an integrative approach to neuroscience that considers ecology, ethology, and evolution. Current technological developments are leading us to an inflection point at which studying brain functions in the wild is now possible. Ecological studies on how the environment affects behavior of animals (i.e., hibernation, foraging, food hoarding, and nest building) have framed a plurality of questions to be answered mechanistically, and yet, only few studies have addressed the relationship between the environment and the brain's anatomy and physiology. Neuroscience needs new animal models that allow us to tackle such questions in the wild. Here, we propose a new animal model for wild neuroscience, the agouti (Dasyprocta spp.), a large wild rodent playing a critical seasonal role in the maintenance of the central and south American rainforest ecosystems. We focus on how a rodent model, like the agouti, will allow for the investigation of large-scale brain dynamics during seasonal behaviors of ecological importance: scatter-hoarding and retrieval. We describe agouti evolution, ecology, and physiology as well as neuro-anatomical and neurophysiological studies, which have set the foundation for future neuroscience in natura. We suggest agoutis have the potential to be a groundbreaking model for wild neuroscience.
{"title":"The Agoutis: A Future Model for Ecologically Relevant Neuroscience and Physiology In Natura","authors":"J. I. Sanguinetti-Scheck, D. Gálvez","doi":"10.1111/eth.13514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13514","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The overarching goal of neurobiology is to understand how complex behaviors are generated by the nervous system. The behavior of each species, and the brain that controls it, is shaped by the historical and current state of the environment that they inhabit. This fact is juxtaposed with the reductionist approach of neuroscience that isolates animals from their natural environment. Understanding how brains evolved to orchestrate the myriads of natural behaviors an animal performs in response to its environment requires an integrative approach to neuroscience that considers ecology, ethology, and evolution. Current technological developments are leading us to an inflection point at which studying brain functions in the wild is now possible. Ecological studies on how the environment affects behavior of animals (i.e., hibernation, foraging, food hoarding, and nest building) have framed a plurality of questions to be answered mechanistically, and yet, only few studies have addressed the relationship between the environment and the brain's anatomy and physiology. Neuroscience needs new animal models that allow us to tackle such questions in the wild. Here, we propose a new animal model for wild neuroscience, the agouti (<i>Dasyprocta</i> spp.), a large wild rodent playing a critical seasonal role in the maintenance of the central and south American rainforest ecosystems. We focus on how a rodent model, like the agouti, will allow for the investigation of large-scale brain dynamics during seasonal behaviors of ecological importance: scatter-hoarding and retrieval. We describe agouti evolution, ecology, and physiology as well as neuro-anatomical and neurophysiological studies, which have set the foundation for future neuroscience in natura. We suggest agoutis have the potential to be a groundbreaking model for wild neuroscience.</p>","PeriodicalId":50494,"journal":{"name":"Ethology","volume":"130 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eth.13514","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sacha C. Engelhardt, Claudia Fichtel, Peter M. Kappeler
Gray mouse lemur, Microcebus murinus, mothers either cooperatively breed plurally with kin or breed solitarily. We describe the first observations of cooperative and solitary mobbing to defend offspring by wild cooperative breeding gray mouse lemur mothers in Kirindy Forest, Western Madagascar. We observed four groups of cooperatively breeding mothers and their offspring daily between 18:00 and 04:00 from January 1 to 15, 2023. Cooperative mobbing was observed twice, and solitary mobbing by a single cooperative breeding mother was observed once. There was one Malagasy tree boa, Sanzinia madagascariensis, per mobbing event. Mothers solitarily mobbed by directly approaching within 1 m of the boa, walking and changing distance while within 1 m of the boa. In addition to the solitary mobbing behaviors, cooperatively mobbing mothers approached the boa together from the same or different directions or alternated, and they gathered around the boa. Mothers collaborated in the context of offspring defense from predators and performed different complementary tasks: mobbing while another provided alloparental care by guarding the offspring of the association, that is, babysitting. Mothers performed similar mobbing behaviors and occasionally synchronized in time or coordinate in time and in space to approach from different directions and gather around the boa. Mothers did not come in contact with the boas during mobbing but kept a distance of at least 20 cm. On two mobbing events, the boa rose up with its head facing the mobbing mothers and climbed down the tree after the mobbing. Cooperative mobbing to defend offspring likely evolved by kin selection but reciprocity and an interaction between kin selection and reciprocity cannot be ruled out, since gray mouse lemur mothers cooperatively breed with kin and basically allonurse reciprocally.
{"title":"Cooperative and Solitary Mobbing to Defend Offspring in Wild Gray Mouse Lemurs, Microcebus murinus","authors":"Sacha C. Engelhardt, Claudia Fichtel, Peter M. Kappeler","doi":"10.1111/eth.13512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13512","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gray mouse lemur, <i>Microcebus murinus</i>, mothers either cooperatively breed plurally with kin or breed solitarily. We describe the first observations of cooperative and solitary mobbing to defend offspring by wild cooperative breeding gray mouse lemur mothers in Kirindy Forest, Western Madagascar. We observed four groups of cooperatively breeding mothers and their offspring daily between 18:00 and 04:00 from January 1 to 15, 2023. Cooperative mobbing was observed twice, and solitary mobbing by a single cooperative breeding mother was observed once. There was one Malagasy tree boa, <i>Sanzinia madagascariensis</i>, per mobbing event. Mothers solitarily mobbed by directly approaching within 1 m of the boa, walking and changing distance while within 1 m of the boa. In addition to the solitary mobbing behaviors, cooperatively mobbing mothers approached the boa together from the same or different directions or alternated, and they gathered around the boa. Mothers collaborated in the context of offspring defense from predators and performed different complementary tasks: mobbing while another provided alloparental care by guarding the offspring of the association, that is, babysitting. Mothers performed similar mobbing behaviors and occasionally synchronized in time or coordinate in time and in space to approach from different directions and gather around the boa. Mothers did not come in contact with the boas during mobbing but kept a distance of at least 20 cm. On two mobbing events, the boa rose up with its head facing the mobbing mothers and climbed down the tree after the mobbing. Cooperative mobbing to defend offspring likely evolved by kin selection but reciprocity and an interaction between kin selection and reciprocity cannot be ruled out, since gray mouse lemur mothers cooperatively breed with kin and basically allonurse reciprocally.</p>","PeriodicalId":50494,"journal":{"name":"Ethology","volume":"131 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eth.13512","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In case you are surprised, such email messages are not uncommon. In fact, the first such email I received was quite effective in exerting moral pressure on me as an editor. The message attempted to hold me accountable for the timely submission of a thesis. Presumably, this even comes with a kind of obligation to also accept the manuscript, no matter how crappy it might be. Otherwise, I as editor would be responsible for a doctoral student's failure, thereby possibly ending a promising scientific career. But is this really so?</p><p>Editors of reputable scientific journals have an ethical obligation to readers and authors to accept and publish manuscripts on the basis of scientific quality and merit. Therefore—after an initial screening to assess the overall suitability for the journal—manuscripts must be peer-reviewed. Based on the reviewers' comments and the editor's own assessment, the editor then decides whether to accept the manuscript, whether it needs some revision, or whether it should be rejected. The possibility to reject a manuscript is essential in this process—unless you work for a predatory journal whose only interest is to generate revenue for the publisher.</p><p>In <i>Ethology</i>, roughly half of all submissions are eventually rejected, so any attempt to guarantee an author a (positive) decision and within a set period of time would be irresponsible and unethical to all other authors and readers of the journal, who trust in the journal's reputation and expect only high-quality behavioural research to be published by <i>Ethology</i>.</p><p>Presumably, most people who have written an email such as the one mentioned above are not even aware that what they do is unethical. They probably write such emails in an attempt to help their students finish their theses in time. But where does the expectation come from that a journal could make a (presumably) positive decision within a certain period of time? The problem may have to do with how many universities deal with the submission of dissertations.</p><p>When I was a doctoral student, it was still common practice at German universities to submit dissertations as monographs. My university was sort of progressive in that it allowed doctoral students to structure their dissertations into separate chapters, each of which could be published as a separate paper. However, the pressure on doctoral students to publish as early as possible and ideally before finishing their degree has strongly increased since then. As a consequence, my university also changed its policy: now theses have to be submitted as monographs or cumulatively as separate chapters, two of which have to be published or at least have to be accepted by a scientific journal before thesis submission. Most doctoral students in biology choose such a cumulative thesis, even if this comes at the cost of losing time with submitting and revising manuscripts. As a consequence, funding often runs out long before the chapters have been
{"title":"Are scientific journals delaying doctoral theses?","authors":"Wolfgang Goymann","doi":"10.1111/eth.13507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13507","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In case you are surprised, such email messages are not uncommon. In fact, the first such email I received was quite effective in exerting moral pressure on me as an editor. The message attempted to hold me accountable for the timely submission of a thesis. Presumably, this even comes with a kind of obligation to also accept the manuscript, no matter how crappy it might be. Otherwise, I as editor would be responsible for a doctoral student's failure, thereby possibly ending a promising scientific career. But is this really so?</p><p>Editors of reputable scientific journals have an ethical obligation to readers and authors to accept and publish manuscripts on the basis of scientific quality and merit. Therefore—after an initial screening to assess the overall suitability for the journal—manuscripts must be peer-reviewed. Based on the reviewers' comments and the editor's own assessment, the editor then decides whether to accept the manuscript, whether it needs some revision, or whether it should be rejected. The possibility to reject a manuscript is essential in this process—unless you work for a predatory journal whose only interest is to generate revenue for the publisher.</p><p>In <i>Ethology</i>, roughly half of all submissions are eventually rejected, so any attempt to guarantee an author a (positive) decision and within a set period of time would be irresponsible and unethical to all other authors and readers of the journal, who trust in the journal's reputation and expect only high-quality behavioural research to be published by <i>Ethology</i>.</p><p>Presumably, most people who have written an email such as the one mentioned above are not even aware that what they do is unethical. They probably write such emails in an attempt to help their students finish their theses in time. But where does the expectation come from that a journal could make a (presumably) positive decision within a certain period of time? The problem may have to do with how many universities deal with the submission of dissertations.</p><p>When I was a doctoral student, it was still common practice at German universities to submit dissertations as monographs. My university was sort of progressive in that it allowed doctoral students to structure their dissertations into separate chapters, each of which could be published as a separate paper. However, the pressure on doctoral students to publish as early as possible and ideally before finishing their degree has strongly increased since then. As a consequence, my university also changed its policy: now theses have to be submitted as monographs or cumulatively as separate chapters, two of which have to be published or at least have to be accepted by a scientific journal before thesis submission. Most doctoral students in biology choose such a cumulative thesis, even if this comes at the cost of losing time with submitting and revising manuscripts. As a consequence, funding often runs out long before the chapters have been ","PeriodicalId":50494,"journal":{"name":"Ethology","volume":"130 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eth.13507","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142447770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}