Article

Individual recognition: it is good to be different.

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 N. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1048, USA.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Impact Factor: 15.35). 11/2007; 22(10):529-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Individual recognition (IR) behavior has been widely studied, uncovering spectacular recognition abilities across a range of taxa and modalities. Most studies of IR focus on the recognizer (receiver). These studies typically explore whether a species is capable of IR, the cues that are used for recognition and the specializations that receivers use to facilitate recognition. However, relatively little research has explored the other half of the communication equation: the individual being recognized (signaler). Provided there is a benefit to being accurately identified, signalers are expected to actively broadcast their identity with distinctive cues. Considering the prevalence of IR, there are probably widespread benefits associated with distinctiveness. As a result, selection for traits that reveal individual identity might represent an important and underappreciated selective force contributing to the evolution and maintenance of genetic polymorphisms.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: J. Dale, Jan 07, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
200 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability of individuals to recognize others based on vocalizations has been proven in many species of birds. However, we are still far from understanding important aspects of the discrimination process. For example, it is still not fully understood whether, and why, repertoire size hinders discrimination between individuals. Further, the strategies and vocal cues used for discrimination between individuals are largely unexplored. In this study, we tested the ability of chiffchaffs Phylloscopus collybita and willow warblers Phylloscopus trochilus, two closely related species with different repertoire sizes and song organization, to differentiate between their neighbours on the basis of a single song of a neighbouring male. We did playback experiments within the ‘dear enemy’ paradigm in which we tested resident males with a single song of a neighbour broadcast from the correct and opposite, incorrect territory border. Both species displayed a strong ability to discriminate between their neighbours representing further evidence that repertoire size per se has no negative impact on individual recognition in songbirds. Using a single song for playback allowed us to speculate about the nature of the possible cues used by males for recognition. Individual recognition in both species is most likely based on the modulation of syllables or on general voice characteristics. We suggest that specific changes in song organization, for example the tendency of individuals to insert a distinct phrase at the beginning of each song, may facilitate individual recognition and compensate for increased repertoire size in willow warblers.
    Journal of Avian Biology 03/2015; 46(2):151-158. DOI:10.1111/jav.00482 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The extent to which human speech perception evolved by taking advantage of predis-positions and pre-existing features of vertebrate auditory and cognitive systems remains a central question in the evolution of speech. This paper reviews asymmetries in vowel perception, speaker voice recognition, and speaker normalization in non-human animals – topics that have not been thoroughly discussed in relation to the abilities of non-human animals, but are nonetheless important aspects of vocal perception. Throughout this paper we demonstrate that addressing these issues in non-human animals is relevant and worthwhile because many non-human animals must deal with similar issues in their natural environment. That is, they must also discriminate between similar-sounding vocalizations, determine signaler identity from vocalizations, and resolve signaler-dependent variation in vocalizations from conspecifics. Overall, we find that, although plausible, the current evidence is insufficiently strong to conclude that directional asymmetries in vowel perception are specific to humans, or that non-human animals can use voice characteristics to recognize human individuals. However, we do find some indication that non-human animals can normalize speaker differences. Accordingly, we identify avenues for future research that would greatly improve and advance our understanding of these topics.
    Frontiers in Psychology 01/2015; 5. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01543 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Signalling individual identity conveys fitness benefits to signaller and receiver, for example by enabling the avoidance of breeding with kin. Chemical analysis indicates that scent marks are used to communicate individual identity in several mammalian species, but prior to the current study there has been no detailed assessment of individuality in otter scent marks despite their widespread use to survey population distributions. Repeated spraint samples were collected from captive Eurasian otters, Lutra lutra, and analysed using solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PerMANOVA) was chosen over ordination techniques because it uses all of the scent profile rather than a subset of the data. Spraint scent was significantly associated with the identity of the individual otter that deposited it, and the country of origin. Scent similarity between otters at the same location may be explained by genetic similarity. Within-individual variation in scent profiles was also observed which we hypothesize could be explained by hormonal fluctuations. Future research should aim to explain this within-individual variation further and explore other odour signals of individual identity in otters (for example non-volatile compounds).
    Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 12/2014; 80(2). DOI:10.1016/j.mambio.2014.12.004 · 1.34 Impact Factor