Selfish or altruistic? An analysis of alarm call function in wild capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella nigritus

Alarm calls facilitate some antipredatory benefits of group living but may endanger the caller by attracting the predator's attention. A number of hypotheses invoking kin selection and individual selection have been proposed to explain how such behaviour could evolve. This study tests eight hypotheses for alarm call evolution by examining the responses of tufted capuchin monkeys to models of felids, perched raptors and vipers. Specifically, this study examines: (1) differences between individuals in their propensity to call in response to different threat types, (2) whether there is an audience effect for alarm calling and (3) the response of conspecifics to alarms. Results indicate that the benefits likely to be afforded to the caller vary with stimulus type. Alarm calling in response to felids is most likely selfish, with calls apparently directed towards both the predator and potential conspecific mobbers. Alarm calling in response to vipers attracts additional mobbers as well, but also appears to be driven by kin selection in the case of males and parental care benefits in the case of females. Alarm responses to perched raptors are rare, but seem to be selfish, with callers benefiting by recruiting additional mobbers

Data from: The sentinel behaviour of Arabian babbler floaters

The sentinel behaviour of 38 Arabian babbler adult floaters, who lived alone within a territory belonging to a foreign group, was studied and compared with their own sentinel behaviour in the past, when they were group members. All floaters acted as sentinels and uttered ‘alarm calls’. This suggests that sentinel activity is due at least, in part, to selfish motives. Floaters sentinelled less than they did as group members, with the decrease in sentinel activity sharper for ex-dominants than for ex-subordinates. One possible explanation for these differences is that sentinel activity is aimed not only at detecting predators, but also at detecting foreign conspecifics. Within a group, the latter incentive is stronger for breeding dominants than for subordinates, whereas all floaters alike may be trying to detect the owners of the territory in which they were roaming but also to avoid being detected by them. Other possible explanations are that floaters have less time and energy for sentinel activity because they are weaker or because foraging is more difficult in a foreign territory. This may be especially so for dominants who used to enjoy privileged access to food in their group. No significant difference was found in the rate of sentinels' ‘alarm calls’ between floaters and group members, suggesting that their main purpose is predator–prey communication, of which warning groupmates may be a side benefit

Risk-sensitive foraging in a cooperative breeder is unaffected by sentinel presence

The dataset of the natural observationsTHIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Sentinel, Refugees, Arabian babbler

Excel data set for the manuscrip