This study investigated alarm calls given by Uinta ground squirrels (Spermophilus armatus) in the presence of a ground predator. I observed predator responses of 18 groups of three to four squirrels each for an average of three trials apiece. r~y objectives were: (1) to describe prey-predator interactions resulting in alarm calls, and (2) to test the following hypotheses:
1. Each Uinta ground squirrel (by sex and age) has an equal probability of giving an alarm call at any time of the season.
2. All Uinta ground squirrels are equally likely to call regardless of their distance to a burrow, closest conspecific, and the predator.
3. Alarm calls are as likely to occur in the search stage of predation as in the pursuit stage.
4. Callers and noncallers are equally vulnerable to predation.
I found that: ( 1) each Uinta ground squirrel (by sex and age) in the experimental population had an equal probability of giving an alarm call in the presence of a predator through the season, (2) callers and noncallers were equally close to burrows at the time of the call, (3) the caller was typically located farther away from its closest conspecific than noncallers at the time of the cal l, (4) the caller was significantly closer to the predator than were noncallers at the time of the call, (5) alarm calls occurred significantly more often in the pursuit stage of predation than in the search stage, and (6) noncallers suffered significantly more predation than did callers.
There appeared to be little risk and energetic cost associated with calling. Squirrels that called usually were being pursued by the predator and were very close to a burrow when they called. The callers had little to lose and could increase their inclusive fitness by warning relatives of the presence of danger.
This study dealt only with responses to ground predators. Squirrels are likely to respond differently to avian predators. It is suggested that responses of animals to avian and terrestrial predators should vary with the potential threat that the predator poses.
The apparent inhibition of secondary calls is discussed. Once animals are aware of the presence of danger, there is no need for another animal to repeat the message and reveal its location to the predator.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UTAHS/oai:digitalcommons.usu.edu:etd-4494 |
| Date | 01 May 1979 |
| Creators | Cherry, Marion Barch |
| Publisher | DigitalCommons@USU |
| Source Sets | Utah State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | All Graduate Theses and Dissertations |
| Rights | Copyright for this work is held by the author. Transmission or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Works not in the public domain cannot be commercially exploited without permission of the copyright owner. Responsibility for any use rests exclusively with the user. For more information contact Andrew Wesolek (andrew.wesolek@usu.edu). |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds