Ambre Salis, Jean Paul Lena, Thierry LengagnePlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>Heterospecific communication is common for birds when mobbing a predator. However, joining the mob should depend on the number of callers already enrolled, as larger mobs imply lower individual risks for the newcomer. In addition, some ‘community informant’ species seem more reliable regarding the information transferred in mobbing calls. Birds should therefore rely on both the number of callers and the species identity of the caller(s) when mobbing. In the present study, we tested the potential interaction between two acoustic cues. In a playback experiment, we modified the number of callers (through an increased number of calling individuals correlated to an increased duty cycle) and the emitter species (crested tits versus coal tits). Overall, we found that soundtracks with three callers triggered more mobbing than soundtracks with one caller and that soundtracks with coal tits’ calls triggered more mobbing than soundtracks with crested tits’ calls. Our results therefore support the hypothesis that birds consider both the species and the number of callers when joining a mobbing chorus in winter. Finally, we replicated the experiment in spring and did not record the same responses from the bird community. Indeed, only soundtracks with three coal tits triggered a mobbing response, suggesting therefore that the seasonal context can affect the results of studies on heterospecific communication. The potential mechanisms implicated in the varying responses to different acoustic cues and different seasons are discussed and should deserve further investigations.</p>
heterospecific communication, mobbing call, community response, cooperation, seasonal effect
David Wilson [dwilson@mun.ca], Daniel Mennill [dmennill@uwindsor.ca], Michael Griesser [mgriesser@ab.mpg.de], Kathryn Arnold [kathryn.arnold@york.ac.uk], Eben Goodale [eben.goodale@outlook.com], Tatjana Krama [tatjana.krama@ut.ee], Filipe da Cunha [filipe.cunha@uzh.ch]
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
