Save

Different Functions of "Alarm" Calling for Different Time Scales: a Preliminary Report On Ground Squirrels

In: Behaviour
Authors:
Donald H. Owings Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, Calif.

Search for other papers by Donald H. Owings in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
David F. Hennessy Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr., U.S.A.

Search for other papers by David F. Hennessy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Daniel W. Leger Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68588, U.S.A.

Search for other papers by Daniel W. Leger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
A. Beckett Gladney Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California, 95616, U.S.A.

Search for other papers by A. Beckett Gladney in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

Abstract

The predator-evoked calling of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) was studied in the field during the reproductive season. Three different sources of data indicated that adults call more after, than before their young have reached the age of first emergence from natal burrows. During exposure to a tethered rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis oreganus) and to a freely-moving dog (Canis familiaris), and in natural encounters with a coyote (Canis latrans) or bobcat (Lynx rufus), calling was more frequent after than before young first emerged. We concluded that California ground squirrels call in order to warn their offspring about predators, like other ground squirrel species do. In order to see the increase in mammalian predator evoked calling after pup emergence, we had to separate calling on the basis of its temporal organization. Nonrepetitive calling involved spacing a few vocalizations irregularly in time. Calls patterned in this way were more common early in an encounter, became more frequent after pup emergence, and more consistently elicited immediate reactions. Such calling was probably used to warn pups. Repetitive calling comprised rhythmic emission of a series of vocalizations. Calls organized repetitively were more common later in an encounter, were not emitted more frequently after pup emergence, and less consistently evoked immediate reactions. These and other differences between the two temporal patterns of vocalizing led us to propose that repetitive calling represented a "tonic" communicatory effort (as in SCHLEIDT, 1973). Repetitive inputs to other squirrels may act "cumulatively" in a longer time scale than nonrepetitive calling, so as to cultivate or maintain vigilance in other squirrels. The repetitive caller could benefit by using the enhanced reactions of these more vigilant squirrels as a source of information about the predator. We propose that predator-prey episodes may be understandable from an "epigenetic" perspective. That is, the first alarm calls during an encounter should shift squirrels from an unwarned to a warned status; subsequent calling must then function in some other way than as a warning.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 381 59 3
Full Text Views 163 7 0
PDF Views & Downloads 45 7 0