Literature DB >> 21361918

Singing for your supper: sentinel calling by kleptoparasites can mitigate the cost to victims.

Andrew N Radford1, Matthew B V Bell, Linda I Hollén, Amanda R Ridley.   

Abstract

Parasitism generally imposes costs on victims, yet many victims appear to tolerate their parasites. We suggest that in some cases this may be because parasites provide victims with mitigating benefits, paradoxically giving rise to selection for advertisement rather than concealment by parasites. We investigate this possibility using the interaction between an avian kleptoparasite, the fork-tailed drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis), and one of its victims, the pied babbler (Turdoides bicolor). Combining field observations and a playback experiment, we demonstrate that a conspicuous vocal signal broadcast by drongos perched waiting to steal food from foraging babblers allows the latter to improve their own foraging efficiency, although not to the same extent as that experienced in response to conspecific sentinel calling. We argue that "sentinel" calling by drongos may originally have arisen as a means of manipulating babblers: because babblers find more food items and venture into the open more in response to these vocalizations, drongos are presented with more kleptoparasitism opportunities. However, the resulting benefit to babblers could be sufficient to reduce selection for the evolution of defenses against drongos, and the current situation may represent a rare example of an interspecific relationship in transition from a parasitism to a mutualism.
© 2010 The Author(s). Evolution© 2010 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21361918     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01180.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  10 in total

1.  A 'crying wolf' game of interspecific kleptoparasitic mutualism.

Authors:  Antonio J Golubski; Nathaniel S O'Connell; Jesse A Schwartz; Sean F Ellermeyer
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Interspecific signalling between mutualists: food-thieving drongos use a cooperative sentinel call to manipulate foraging partners.

Authors:  Bruce D Baigrie; Alex M Thompson; Tom P Flower
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Deceptive vocal duets and multimodal display in a songbird.

Authors:  Paweł Ręk; Robert D Magrath
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Alarming features: birds use specific acoustic properties to identify heterospecific alarm calls.

Authors:  Pamela M Fallow; Benjamin J Pitcher; Robert D Magrath
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  To call or not to call: parents assess the vulnerability of their young before warning them about predators.

Authors:  Tonya M Haff; Robert D Magrath
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Calling by concluding sentinels: coordinating cooperation or revealing risk?

Authors:  Linda I Hollén; Matthew B V Bell; Alexis Russell; Fraser Niven; Amanda R Ridley; Andrew N Radford
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A continuous ideal free distribution approach to the dynamics of selfish, cooperative and kleptoparasitic populations.

Authors:  Ilona Reding; Michael Kelley; Jonathan T Rowell; Jan Rychtář
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  Eavesdropping grey squirrels infer safety from bird chatter.

Authors:  Marie V Lilly; Emma C Lucore; Keith A Tarvin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Sexually selected sentinels? Evidence of a role for intrasexual competition in sentinel behavior.

Authors:  Lindsay A Walker; Jenny E York; Andrew J Young
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2016-04-24       Impact factor: 2.671

10.  The smell of hunger: Norway rats provision social partners based on odour cues of need.

Authors:  Karin Schneeberger; Gregory Röder; Michael Taborsky
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 8.029

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.