Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30919106›Full record

ArticleOecologia2019

Alarm calls or predator calls: which elicit stronger responses in ungulate communities living with and without lions?

Douglas F Makin, Simon Chamaillé-Jammes, Adrian M Shrader

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Differential weighting of lion vocalizations and oxpecker alarm calls in giraffes.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Douglas F MakinSchool of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. doug.makin4@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7168-4436
Simon Chamaillé-JammesCentre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier-EPHE, Montpellier, France.
Adrian M ShraderSchool of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6451-6132
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev · ILCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

National Research Foundation 77582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alarm calls and predator vocalizations convey information on predator presence and potential risk. Generally, prey employ anti-predator behaviours more in response to alarm calls. However, occasionally prey respond more to the vocalizations of specific predators. A key question is do prey still respond to alarm calls and predator vocalizations when a dangerous predator is absent? Additionally, would the prey species' response (e.g. vigilance) differ from prey already living with these predators? Using auditory playbacks, we tested whether four herbivore species living with lions responded more to alarm calls than lion vocalizations compared to a black cuckoo control call. Overall, red hartebeest, wildebeest and zebra had greater vigilance in response to the lion roars compared to the alarm calls. The differences in vigilance suggest that, despite the lion roars not being related to hunting, these herbivores perceived the predator vocalizations as a more immediate indicator of risk than the alarm calls. We then tested whether herbivores living with lions increased their vigilance more in response to the calls than conspecifics in a lion-free section. Despite greater overall vigilance in the lion section, gemsbok and zebra in the lion-free section significantly increased their vigilance in response to the lion roars. This indicates that species under the greatest threat from a predator (e.g. preferred prey) may maintain innate anti-predator responses to an absent but dangerous predator longer than less preferred prey. Ultimately, our results indicate that cues from dangerous predators can have greater effects on anti-predator behaviours than alarm calls for some prey species.

Indexed as

AntelopesLionsAnimalsBirdsCuesPredatory BehaviorAnti-predator behaviourAuditory cuesPredator–prey interactionsVigilance

Identifiers

PMID30919106
OpenAlexW2924550375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.