Book contents
- Field and Laboratory Methods in Animal Cognition
- Field and Laboratory Methods in Animal Cognition
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction. The Concept of Umwelt in Experimental Animal Cognition
- 1 Ants – Individual and Social Cognition
- 2 Bats – Using Sound to Reveal Cognition
- 3 Bees – The Experimental Umwelt of Honeybees
- 4 Carib Grackles – Field and Lab Work on a Tame, Opportunistic Island Icterid
- 5 Chicken – Cognition in the Poultry Yard
- 6 Chimpanzees – Investigating Cognition in the Wild
- 7 Dolphins and Whales – Taking Cognitive Research Out of the Tanks and into the Wild
- 8 Elephants – Studying Cognition in the African Savannah
- 9 Fish – How to Ask Them the Right Questions
- 10 Hermit Crabs – Information Gathering by the Hermit Crab, Pagurus bernhardus
- 11 Hyenas – Testing Cognition in the Umwelt of the Spotted Hyena
- 12 Lizards – Measuring Cognition: Practical Challenges and the Influence of Ecology and Social Behaviour
- 13 Meerkats – Identifying Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Meerkat Coordination and Communication: Experimental Designs in Their Natural Habitat
- 14 Octopuses – Mind in the Waters
- 15 Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus) – Cognitive and Communicative Abilities
- 16 Sharks – Elasmobranch Cognition
- 17 Spiders – Hints for Testing Cognition and Learning in Jumping Spiders
- 18 Tortoises – Cold-Blooded Cognition: How to Get a Tortoise Out of Its Shell
- Epilogue
- Index
- References
13 - Meerkats – Identifying Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Meerkat Coordination and Communication: Experimental Designs in Their Natural Habitat
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2018
By
Book contents
- Field and Laboratory Methods in Animal Cognition
- Field and Laboratory Methods in Animal Cognition
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction. The Concept of Umwelt in Experimental Animal Cognition
- 1 Ants – Individual and Social Cognition
- 2 Bats – Using Sound to Reveal Cognition
- 3 Bees – The Experimental Umwelt of Honeybees
- 4 Carib Grackles – Field and Lab Work on a Tame, Opportunistic Island Icterid
- 5 Chicken – Cognition in the Poultry Yard
- 6 Chimpanzees – Investigating Cognition in the Wild
- 7 Dolphins and Whales – Taking Cognitive Research Out of the Tanks and into the Wild
- 8 Elephants – Studying Cognition in the African Savannah
- 9 Fish – How to Ask Them the Right Questions
- 10 Hermit Crabs – Information Gathering by the Hermit Crab, Pagurus bernhardus
- 11 Hyenas – Testing Cognition in the Umwelt of the Spotted Hyena
- 12 Lizards – Measuring Cognition: Practical Challenges and the Influence of Ecology and Social Behaviour
- 13 Meerkats – Identifying Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Meerkat Coordination and Communication: Experimental Designs in Their Natural Habitat
- 14 Octopuses – Mind in the Waters
- 15 Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus) – Cognitive and Communicative Abilities
- 16 Sharks – Elasmobranch Cognition
- 17 Spiders – Hints for Testing Cognition and Learning in Jumping Spiders
- 18 Tortoises – Cold-Blooded Cognition: How to Get a Tortoise Out of Its Shell
- Epilogue
- Index
- References
Summary
Meerkats (Suricata suricatta), a cooperatively breeding mongoose living under high predation pressure, have evolved elaborate communication systems to coordinate their activities. In situ observations of vocal and olfactory signal use and composition, as well as testing receiver responses to specific known stimuli within so called bio-assays have revealed a wealth of variation in signal information, which is perceived and used by receivers. Similarly, receivers show variability in their responses depending on aspects of the signaller, and also based on their own personal situation or experience. In this chapter I discuss experimental designs that address how to identify the underlying cognitive mechanism in vocal and olfactory communication, and refer to studies on social learning and methodologies to identify traditions in habituated meerkats in their natural habitat. In particular I describe the habituation process from completely wild groups to the stage where we can follow them within 1 m while foraging. I also describe presentation experiments involving acoustic, olfactory or visual stimuli, and what potential problems need to be considered when performing such manipulations.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Field and Laboratory Methods in Animal CognitionA Comparative Guide, pp. 286 - 307Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Borjon, J. I., and Ghazanfar, A. A. (2014). Convergent evolution of vocal cooperation without convergent evolution of brain size. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 84, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkart, J. M., and van Schaik, C. P. (2010). Cognitive consequences of cooperative breeding in primates? Animal Cognition, 13, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkart, J. M., and van Schaik, C. P. (2016). Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding. Journal of Zoology, 299, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkart, J. M., Hrdy, S. B., and van Schaik, C. P. (2009). Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 18, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkart, J. M., Allon, O., Amici, F., et al. (2014). The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation. Nature Communications, 5, 4747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkart, J. M., et al. (in press). From sharing food to sharing information: cooperative breeding and language evolution. Interaction Studies.Google Scholar
Erb, W. M., and Porter, L. M. (2017). Mother’s little helpers: what we know (and don’t know) about cooperative infant care in callitrichines. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 26, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawamura, S. (2016). Color vision diversity and significance in primates inferred from genetic and field studies. Genes and Genomics, 38, 779–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leighton, G. M. (2017). Cooperative breeding influences the number and type of vocalizations in avian lineages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284(1868), 20171508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLean, E. L., Matthews, L. J., Hare, B. A., et al. (2012). How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology. Animal Cognition, 15, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLean, E. L., Hare, B., Nunn, C. L., et al. (2014). The evolution of self-control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 2140–2148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osmanski, M. S., and Wang, X. (2011) Measurement of absolute auditory thresholds in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Hearing Research, 277, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffner, C. M., and Caine, N. G. (2000). The peacefulness of cooperatively breeding primates. In Natural conflict resolution (pp. 155–169). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schiel, N., and Souto, A. (2017). The common marmoset: an overview of its natural history, ecology and behavior. Developmental Neurobiology, 77, 244–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowdon, C. T. (2001). Social processes in communication and cognition in callitrichid monkeys: a review. Animal Cognition, 4, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowdon, C. T. (2017). Vocal communication in family-living and pair-bonded primates. In Primate hearing and communication (pp. 141–174). Cham: Springer Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., and Gonzalez-Cabrera, I. (2017). The role of ontogeny in the evolution of human cooperation. Human Nature, 28, 274–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamamoto, M. E., Araujo, A., de Fatima Arruda, M., Moreira Lima, A. K., de Oliveria Siqueira, J., and Hattori, W. T. (2014). Male and female breeding strategies in a cooperative primate. Behavioural Processes, 109, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuberbühler, K. (2011) Cooperative breeding and the evolution of vocal flexibility. In The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 71–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
References
Manser, M. B., and Bell, M. B. V. (2004). Spatial representation of shelter locations in meerkats, Suricata suricatta. Animal Behaviour, 68, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, M. B., Jansen, D. A. W. A. M., Graw, B., et al. (2014). Vocal complexity in meerkats and other mongoose species. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 46, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, K., and Thornton, A. (2012). How do banded mongooses locate and select anvils for cracking encased food items? Behavioural Processes, 90, 350–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, C. A. (2010). Do anvil-using banded mongooses understand means-end relationships? A field experiment. Animal Cognition, 13, 325–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, C., and Manser, M. B. (2008). Mutual recognition of pups and providers in the cooperatively breeding banded mongoose. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1683–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, L. L., Hill, A., and Cherry, M. I. (2013). Individual recognition in a wild cooperative mammal using contact calls. Animal Behaviour, 86, 893–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Amici, F, Colell, M., von Borell, C. and Bueno-Guerra, N. (2017). Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) fail to prosocially donate food in an experimental set-up. Animal Cognition, 20, 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsler, V. (2008) How urgency levels in alarm calls influence the forager’s response in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). Zurich: University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Bousquet, C. A. (2011). Group decision-making in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). Zurich: University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Bousquet, C. A., Sumpter, D. J., and Manser, M. B. (2011). Moving calls: a vocal mechanism underlying quorum decisions in cohesive groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1482–1488.Google Scholar
Brotherton, P. N. M., Clutton-Brock, T. H., O’ Riain, M. J., et al. (2001). Offspring food allocation by parents and helpers in a cooperative mammal. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 590–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro, T. M. and Hauser, M. D. (1992). Is there teaching in nonhuman animals? The Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, 151–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheney, D. L., and Seyfarth, R. M. (1992). How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Gaynor, D., Kansky, R., et al. (1998 ). Costs of cooperative behaviour in suricates (Suricata suricatta). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 265, 185–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Gaynor, D., McIlrath, G. M., et al. (1999a). Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 672–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., O’Riain, M. J., Brotherton, P. N. M., et al. (1999b). Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science, 284, 1640–1644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Brotherton, P. N. M., O’Riain, M. J., et al. (2001a). Contributions to cooperative rearing in meerkats. Animal Behaviour, 61, 705–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Brotherton, P. N., Russell, A. F., et al. (2001b). Cooperation, control, and concession in meerkat groups. Science, 291, 478–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Hodge, S. J., Flower, T. P., Spong, G. F., and Young, A. J. (2010). Adaptive suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperative mammals. The American Naturalist, 176, 664–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doolan, S. P., and MacDonald, D. W. (1996). Diet and foraging behaviour of group-living meerkats, Suricata suricatta, in the southern Kalahari. Journal of Zoology, 239, 697–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engesser, S. (2011). Function of ‘close’ calls in a group foraging carnivore, Suricata suricatta. Zurich: University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Flower, T. (2011a). Fork-tailed drongos use deceptive mimicked alarm calls to steal food. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1548–1555.Google ScholarPubMed
Flower, T. P. (2011b). Competition for food in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). South Africa: University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
Gall, G. E., and Manser, M. B. (2017). Group cohesion in foraging meerkats: follow the moving ‘vocal hot spot’. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graw, B., and Manser, M. B. (2007). The function of mobbing in cooperative meerkats. Animal Behaviour, 74, 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, A. S., Nürnberger, B., and Pemberton, J. M. (2001). A panel of microsatellites developed for meerkats (Suricata suricatta) by cross-species amplification and species-specific cloning. Molecular Ecology Resources, 1, 83–85.Google Scholar
Hollén, L. I., and Manser, M. B. (2006). Ontogeny of alarm call responses in meerkats, Suricata suricatta: the roles of age, sex and nearby conspecifics. Animal Behaviour, 72, 1345–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollén, L. I., Clutton-Brock, T. and Manser, M. B. (2008). Ontogenetic changes in alarm-call production and usage in meerkats (Suricata suricatta): adaptations or constraints? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 821–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. R., Cherry, M. I., and Manser, M. B. (2007). The spatial and temporal distribution of meerkat latrines reflects intruder diversity and suggests a role of mate defence. Animal Behaviour, 73, 613–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, D., Manser, M. B., Wiley, E. M., and Townsend, S. W. (2014). Nonlinearities in meerkat alarm calls prevent receivers from habituating. Ethology, 120, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutsukake, N., and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2006). Aggression and submission reflect reproductive conflict between females in cooperatively breeding meerkats Suricata suricatta. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 59, 541–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclaire, S., Nielsen, J. F., Thavarajah, N. K., Manser, M. B., and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). Odour-based kin discrimination in the cooperatively breeding meerkat. Biology Letters, 9, 20121054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, M. B. (1998). The evolution of auditory communication in suricates, Suricata suricatta. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Manser, M. B. (1999). Response of foraging group members to sentinel calls in suricates, Suricata suricatta. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 266, 1013–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, M. B. (2001). The acoustic structure of suricates’ alarm calls varies with predator type and the level of response urgency. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268, 2315–2324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, M. B., and Bell, M. B. (2004). Spatial representation of shelter locations in meerkats, Suricata suricatta. Animal Behaviour, 68, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, M. B., Bell, M. B., and Fletcher, L. B. (2001). The information that receivers extract from alarm calls in suricates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268, 2485–2491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, M. B., Seyfarth, R. M., and Cheney, D. L. (2002). Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 55–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, M. B., Jansen, D. A. W. A. M., Graw, B., et al. (2014). Vocal complexity in meerkats and other mongoose species. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 46, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, R., Young, A. J., Levesque, D. L., Harrison, N., and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2011). Responses to intruder scents in the cooperatively breeding meerkat: sex and social status differences and temporal variation. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milius, S. (2007). Science behind the soap opera: the cute and the shocking at meerkat manor. Science News, 171, 138–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, G., Timney, B., Sorensen, L., and Desrochers, B. (1983). Binocular depth perception in the meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Vision Research, 23, 965–969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proops, L., McComb, K., and Reby, D. (2009). Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 947–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauber, R., and Manser, M. B. (2017). Discrete call types referring to predation risk enhance the efficiency of the meerkat sentinel system. Scientific Reports, 7, 44436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, S. A., Townsend, S. W., and Manser, M. B. (2013). Social monitoring via close calls in meerkats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20131013.Google ScholarPubMed
Santema, P., and Clutton-Brock, T. (2013). Meerkat helpers increase sentinel behaviour and bipedal vigilance in the presence of pups. Animal Behaviour, 85, 655–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schibler, F., and Manser, M. B. (2007). The irrelevance of individual discrimination in meerkat alarm calls. Animal Behaviour, 74, 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, P. A., Russell, A. F., Young, A. J., Sutherland, W. J., and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2004). Dispersal, eviction, and conflict in meerkats (Suricata suricatta): an evolutionarily stable strategy model. The American Naturalist, 165, 120–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thavarajah, N. K., Fenkes, M., and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2014). The determinants of dominance relationships among subordinate females in the cooperatively breeding meerkat. Behaviour, 151, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, A. (2008). Social learning about novel foods in young meerkats. Animal Behaviour, 76, 1411–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, A., and Clutton-Brock, T. (2011). Social learning and the development of individual and group behaviour in mammal societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 366, 978–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, A., and Malapert, A. (2009). The rise and fall of an arbitrary tradition: an experiment with wild meerkats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1269–1276.Google ScholarPubMed
Thornton, A., and McAuliffe, K. (2006). Teaching in wild meerkats. Science, 313, 227–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, A., and Raihani, N. J. (2010). Identifying teaching in wild animals. Learning and Behavior, 38, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, A., and Samson, J. (2012). Innovative problem solving in wild meerkats. Animal Behaviour, 83, 1459–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, A., Samson, J., and Clutton-Brock, T. (2010). Multi-generational persistence of traditions in neighbouring meerkat groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 277, 3623–3629.Google ScholarPubMed
Townsend, S. W., Allen, C., and Manser, M. B. (2011). A simple test of vocal individual recognition in wild meerkats. Biology Letters, 8, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, S. W., Rasmussen, M., Clutton-Brock, T., and Manser, M. (2012). Flexible alarm calling in meerkats: the role of the social environment and predation urgency. Behavioral Ecology, 23, 1360–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, S. W., Charlton, B. D., and Manser, M. B. (2014). Acoustic cues to identity and predator context in meerkat barks. Animal Behaviour, 94, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turbé, A. (2006). Foraging decisions and space use in a social mammal, the meerkat. Doctoral dissertation. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Voellmy, I. K., Goncalves, I. B., Barrette, M.-F., Monfort, S. L., and Manser, M. B. (2014). Mean fecal glucocorticoid metabolites are associated with vigilance, whereas immediate cortisol levels better reflect acute anti-predator responses in meerkats. Hormones and Behavior, 66, 759–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waterman, J. M. (2002). Delayed maturity, group fission and the limits of group size in female Cape ground squirrels (Sciuridae: Xerus inauris). Journal of Zoology, 256, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A. J., and Monfort, S. L. (2009). Stress and the costs of extra-territorial movement in a social carnivore. Biology Letters, 5, 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A. J., Carlson, A. A., Monfort, S. L., Russell, A. F., Bennett, N. C., and Clutton-Brock, T. (2006). Stress and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 12005–12010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, A. J., Spong, G., and Clutton-Brock, T. (2007). Subordinate male meerkats’ prospect for extra-group paternity: alternative reproductive tactics in a cooperative mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 274, 1603–1609.Google Scholar
Zöttl, M. (2009). Benefits of secondary predator cue inspection and recruitment in a cooperative mammal (Suricata suricatta). Vienna: University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Zöttl, M., Lienert, R., Clutton-Brock, T., Millesi, E., and Manser, M. B. (2012). The effects of recruitment to direct predator cues on predator responses in meerkats. Behavioral Ecology, 24, 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by