Centre for Biological Diversity, Sir Harold Mitchell Building & Dyers Brae, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TH, UK.
Zoology Building, Tillydrone Avenue, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2023 Jun;98(3):833-848. doi: 10.1111/brv.12932. Epub 2023 Jan 18.
A key benefit of grouping in prey species is access to social information, including information about the presence of predators. Larger groups of prey animals respond both sooner and at greater distances from predators, increasing the likelihood that group members will successfully avoid capture. However, identifying predators in complex environments is a difficult task, and false alarms (alarm behaviours without genuine threat) appear surprisingly frequent across a range of taxa including insects, amphibians, fish, mammals, and birds. In some bird flocks, false alarms have been recorded to substantially outnumber true alarms. False alarms can be costly in terms of both the energetic costs of producing alarm behaviours as well as lost opportunity costs (e.g. abandoning a feeding patch which was in fact safe, losing sleep if an animal is resting/roosting, or losing mating opportunities). Models have shown that false alarms may be a substantial but underappreciated cost of group living, introducing an inherent risk to using social information and a vulnerability to the propagation of false information. This review will focus on false alarms, introducing a two-stage framework to categorise the different factors hypothesised to influence the propensity of animal groups to produce false alarms. A number of factors may affect false alarm rate, and this new framework splits these factors into two core processing stages: (i) individual perception and response; and (ii) group processing of predator information. In the first stage, individuals in the group monitor the environment for predator cues and respond. The factors highlighted in this stage influence the likelihood that an individual will misclassify stimuli and produce a false alarm (e.g. lower light levels can make predator identification more difficult and false alarms more common). In the second stage, alarm information from individuals is processed by the group. The factors highlighted in this stage influence the likelihood of alarm information being copied by group members and propagated through the group (e.g. some animals implement group processing mechanisms that regulate the spread of behavioural responses such as consensus decision making through the quorum response). This review follows the structure of this new framework, focussing on the causes of false alarms, factors that influence false alarm rate, the transmission of alarm information through animal groups, mechanisms to mitigate the spread of false alarms, and the consequences of false alarms.
分组在猎物物种中的一个主要好处是可以获得社交信息,包括有关捕食者存在的信息。较大的猎物群体对捕食者的反应既更快,也更远,从而增加了群体成员成功逃避捕食的可能性。然而,在复杂环境中识别捕食者是一项艰巨的任务,在包括昆虫、两栖动物、鱼类、哺乳动物和鸟类在内的一系列分类单元中,假警报(没有真正威胁的警报行为)似乎出人意料地频繁出现。在一些鸟类群中,已经记录到假警报的数量大大超过真警报。假警报在产生警报行为的能量成本以及错失的机会成本(例如,放弃实际上是安全的觅食区、如果动物正在休息/栖息则失去睡眠,或者失去交配机会)方面都可能是昂贵的。模型表明,假警报可能是群体生活的一个重要但被低估的成本,这给利用社交信息带来了内在风险,并使虚假信息的传播变得脆弱。本综述将重点关注假警报,引入一个两阶段框架来分类假设影响动物群体产生假警报倾向的不同因素。有许多因素可能会影响假警报率,这个新框架将这些因素分为两个核心处理阶段:(i)个体感知和反应;以及(ii)群体对捕食者信息的处理。在第一阶段,群体中的个体监测环境中的捕食者线索并做出反应。在这一阶段,突出的因素会影响个体将刺激误分类并产生假警报的可能性(例如,较低的光照水平会使捕食者识别变得更加困难,假警报更加常见)。在第二阶段,个体的警报信息由群体进行处理。在这一阶段,突出的因素会影响群体成员复制警报信息并在群体中传播的可能性(例如,一些动物通过群体决策机制来调节行为反应的传播,例如通过多数决来调节行为反应)。本综述遵循这个新框架的结构,重点关注假警报的原因、影响假警报率的因素、警报信息在动物群体中的传递、减轻假警报传播的机制以及假警报的后果。