Barbary ground squirrels do not have a sentinel system but instead synchronise vigilance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coordinated behavior, such as hunting in lions and coordinated vigilance as antipredator behavior, are examples of benefits of group-living. Instead of asynchronous vigilance, some social species synchronize their vigilance bouts or take turns acting as sentinels. To increase our knowledge on the evolution of vigilance behavior, we studied whether vigilance is coordinated in Barbary ground squirrels, Atlantoxerus getulus . We show that vigilance was synchronized instead of taking turns. Multiple non-mutually exclusive hypotheses could explain synchronization: Barbary ground squirrels may perch because 1) neighbors are perched (copying effect), 2) perch synchrony may be an emergent property of the ecology as all squirrels may be satiated at the same time (collective behavior), or 3) the benefits are large in terms of evading ambush predators and scanning effectiveness (watch each other’s back). Particularly, in habitats where the field of view is obstructed by man-made structures and multiple individuals may be necessary to watch for terrestrial predators, synchronized vigilance may have greater fitness benefits than sentinel behavior. We conclude that it is essential to test assumptions of coordination and, thus, to analyze coordination to describe sentinel systems. Significance Statement Vigilance behavior can be vital to an animal’s survival. Taking turns acting as sentinels or synchronizing vigilance bouts reduces the cost of the trade-off between feeding and predation risk. A sentinel system assumes that sentinels are vigilant from raised positions, warn group members of danger, and alternate vigilance bouts. However, the assumption of alternating vigilance bouts remains poorly tested. We tested this assumption in invasive Barbary ground squirrels. We found that instead of alternating, individuals synchronized their vigilance bouts. Perch synchrony may be 1) a response to perching group members (copying effect), 2) an emergent property of the species’ ecology, and 3) an adaptation to anthropogenically altered habitats (watch each other’s back).
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".