Abstract
For a prey, its best ticket to stay alive is to get early and accurate information on predation risk and so, escape from predation at low cost. Some prey species have evolved the ability to eavesdrop signals intended for others, which contain information on predation risk. This is the case for the vocalizations produced by prey species when interacting with predators. Although primarily studied in birds and mammals, eavesdropping on vocal signals has been recorded in some lizard species. Here, we explored whether the lizard Liolaemus lemniscatus eavesdrops on the distress calls of its sympatric species, the Weeping lizard (L. chiliensis). Individuals of the Weeping lizard respond to these calls by displaying antipredator behaviours (i.e., reduced movement), and individuals of L. lemniscatus may potentially display similar defences if they decode the information contained in these calls. Our playback experiments showed that individuals of L. lemniscatus responded to the sound stimuli (distress calls and white noise), reducing their activity, but they did not discriminate between these two stimuli, suggesting that L. lemniscatus does not eavesdrop on the distress calls of its sympatric lizard species. We discuss some hypotheses to explain the lack of eavesdropping by L. lemniscatus on the Weeping lizard distress calls.
Highlights
In a predator–prey interaction, the challenge for prey is to avoid being predated, which constitutes the selective pressure for the evolution of defences or antipredator mechanisms (Caro 2005)
Considering that different non-vocal lizards eavesdrop on alarm calls, here we explored whether the non-vocal lizard Liolaemus lemniscatus eavesdrops on the distress calls emitted by a sympatric congeneric species, the Weeping lizard, L. chiliensis
This suggests that any “scary” sound may activate antipredator behaviours in L. lemniscatus, and that the distress calls of the Weeping lizard do not contain any special information for L. lemniscatus to eavesdrop on
Summary
In a predator–prey interaction, the challenge for prey is to avoid being predated, which constitutes the selective pressure for the evolution of defences or antipredator mechanisms (Caro 2005). Defensive vocalization have been primarily studied in birds and mammals (Caro 2005), and data indicate that alarm calls usually act as warning signals to conspecifics (Klump and Shalter 1984; Caro 2005), while distress calls can have different functions: startle the predator, alert secondary predators, and/or warn conspecifics of predation risk (Högstedt 1983; Neudorf and Sealy 2002) As warning signals, both call types may elicit antipredator responses in conspecifics, and in heterospecifics, which may eavesdrop on these calls to reduce their own predation risk at low cost (Magrath et al 2015a). In the case of alarm calls, evidence indicate that eavesdropping is possible if calls have
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
