Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37449019›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

The evolution of eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: Relevance, reliability, and personal information.

Cameron Rouse Turner, Matt Spike, Robert D Magrath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The role of musical pitch in long-distance defensive signaling.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Differential weighting of lion vocalizations and oxpecker alarm calls in giraffes.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
  7. Exploring mechanisms underlying heterospecific alarm call responses in meerkats and yellow mongooses.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.

Cameron Rouse TurnerComputational Cognitive Science Lab, Department of Computer Science Princeton University Princeton New Jersey USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3413-7860
Matt SpikeCentre for Language Evolution, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-2264
Robert D MagrathDivision of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology Australian National University Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9109-609X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interceptive eavesdropping on the alarm calls of heterospecifics provides crucial information about predators. Previous research suggests predator discrimination, call relevance, reliability, and reception explain when eavesdropping will evolve. However, there has been no quantitative analysis to scrutinize these principles, or how they interact. We develop a mathematical framework that formalizes the study of the key principles thought to select for eavesdropping. Interceptive eavesdropping appears to be greatly affected by the threat faced by caller and eavesdropper, as well as presence of informational noise affecting the detection of calls and predators. Accordingly, our model uses signal detection theory to examine when selection will favor alarm calling by a sender species and fleeing by an eavesdropping receiver species. We find eavesdropping is most strongly selected when (1) the receiver faces substantial threats, (2) species are ecologically similar, (3) senders often correctly discriminate threats, (4) receivers often correctly perceive calls, and (5) the receiver's personal discrimination of threats is poor. Furthermore, we find (6) that very high predation levels can select against eavesdropping because prey cannot continuously flee and must conserve energy. Reliability of heterospecific calls for identifying threats is thought to be important in selecting for eavesdropping. Consequently, we formally define reliability, showing its connection to specificity and sensitivity, clarifying how these quantities can be measured. We find that high call relevance, due to similar vulnerability to predators between species, strongly favors eavesdropping. This is because senders trade-off false alarms and missed predator detections in a way that is also favorable for the eavesdropper, by producing less of the costlier error. Unexpectedly, highly relevant calls increase the total number of combined errors and so have lower reliability. Expectedly, when noise greatly affects personally gathered cues to threats, but not heterospecific calls or detection of predators, eavesdropping is favored.

Indexed as

alarm calleavesdroppingsignal detection theorysignalingsocial information use

Identifiers

PMID37449019
PMCPMC10337016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.