Parental alarm calls suppress nestling vocalization.

Evolutionary models suggest that the cost of a signal can ensure its honesty. Empirical studies of nestling begging imply that predator attraction can impose such a cost. However, parents might reduce or abolish this cost by warning young of the presence of danger. We tested, in a controlled field playback experiment, whether alarm calls cause 5-, 8- and 11-day-old nestlings of the white-browed scrubwren, Sericornis frontalis, to suppress vocalization. In this species, nestlings vocalize when parents visit the nest ('begging') and when they are absent ('non-begging'), so we measured effects on both types of vocalization. Playback of parental alarm calls suppressed non-begging vocalization almost completely but only slightly reduced begging calls during a playback of parental feeding calls that followed. The reaction of nestlings was largely independent of age. Our results suggest two reasons why experiments ignoring the role of parents probably overestimate the real cost of nestling vocalizations. Parents can warn young from a distance about the presence of danger and so suppress non-begging vocalizations that might otherwise be overheard, and a parent's presence at the nest presumably indicates when it is safe to beg

Adaptive differences in response to two types of parental alarm call in altricial nestlings

Vertebrate alarm calls can contain information about the type of predator and the degree of danger, but young animals often respond to alarm calls differently from adults. The distinct behaviour of young may reflect an imperfect stage in the gradual development of the adult response, or a response adapted to specific risks faced by young. In this study, we tested whether nestling white-browed scrubwrens, Sericornis frontalis, responded to different alarm calls according to their specific risks of predation. As predators on the ground pose a danger to scrubwren nestlings, whereas flying predators do not, we predicted that they would respond to ground alarm calls but not to aerial alarm calls. In a field playback experiment, we tested the response of young to aerial and ground alarm calls, each presented in a shorter (less urgent) and longer (more urgent) form. We found that both 5- and 11-day-old nestlings responded to ground alarm calls, and did so more strongly to the more urgent playback. By contrast, the response to aerial alarm calls started to develop only towards the end of the nestling stage. Thus, scrubwren nestlings can distinguish between different types of alarm calls and react more strongly to calls warning of a predator posing greater danger, appropriate to the nestling stage of development. Furthermore, they use the length of ground alarm calls as an indicator of the degree of danger

From nestling calls to fledgling silence: adaptive timing of change in response to aerial alarm calls

Young birds and mammals are extremely vulnerable to predators and so should benefit from responding to parental alarm calls warning of danger. However, young often respond differently from adults. This difference may reflect: (i) an imperfect stage in the gradual development of adult behaviour or (ii) an adaptation to different vulnerability. Altricial birds provide an excellent model to test for adaptive changes with age in response to alarm calls, because fledglings are vulnerable to a different range of predators than nestlings. For example, a flying hawk is irrelevant to a nestling in a enclosed nest, but is dangerous to that individual once it has left the nest, so we predict that young develop a response to aerial alarm calls to coincide with fledging. Supporting our prediction, recently fledged white-browed scrubwrens, Sericornis frontalis, fell silent immediately after playback of their parents' aerial alarm call, whereas nestlings continued to calling despite hearing the playback. Young scrubwrens are therefore exquisitely adapted to the changing risks faced during development