Predator‐Associated Vocalizations in North American Red Squirrels (<i>Tamiasciurus hudsonicus</i>): To Whom are Alarm Calls Addressed and How do They Function?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alarm vocalizations produced by prey species encountering predators can serve a variety of functions. North American red squirrels are a small‐bodied mammal popularly known for producing loud, conspicuous alarm calls, but functional accounts of calling in this species are few and contradictory. We conducted research over a 3‐yr period on a sample of 47 marked red squirrels in the foothills of the Canadian Rockies. We recorded the production of alarm calls during encounters with natural predators and in a series of simulated predator experiments. We tested for variation in call production patterns consistent with three traditional hypotheses concerning the conspecific warning functions of alarm calling: namely that they serve as warnings to kin, to potential mates, or to territorial neighbors with which callers have an established relationship. Patterns of calling did not provide clear support for any of these hypothesized functions. We consider several possible qualifications to our results. We also consider the possibility that conspicuous calls given by red squirrels during encounters with predators are directed at the predators themselves and function to announce their detection and possibly deter them. This possibility is consistent with additional life‐history features of red squirrels including that they are a relatively solitary and territorial, food‐hoarding species that produces the same conspicuous vocalizations in response to other squirrels intruding on their territory to steal cones. An important corollary of this account is that red squirrel alarm calls probably do not entail referentially specific messages about different types of predator, as proposed previously.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".