01918nas a2200241   4500008004100000245014500041210006900186520110800255653002301363653002801386653002001414653000901434653001401443653002301457653002401480653001801504653000901522653002001531653003001551100002401581700003001605856004101635       2021                        eng d00aDefining the multidimensional phenotype: new opportunities to integrate the behavioral ecology and behavioral neuroscience of vocal learning0 aDefining the multidimensional phenotype new opportunities to int3 a<p>Vocal learning has evolved independently in several lineages. This complex cognitive trait is commonly treated as binary: species either possess or lack it. This view has been a useful starting place to examine the origins of vocal learning, but is also incomplete and potentially misleading, as specific components of the vocal learning program &ndash; such as the timing, extent and nature of what is learned &ndash; vary widely among species. In our review we revive an idea first proposed by Beecher and Brenowitz (2005) by describing six dimensions of vocal learning: (1) which vocalizations are learned, (2) how much is learned, (3) when it is learned, (4) who it is learned from, (5) what is the extent of the internal template, and (6) how is the template integrated with social learning and innovation. We then highlight key examples of functional and mechanistic work on each dimension, largely from avian taxa, and discuss how a multi-dimensional framework can accelerate our understanding of why vocal learning has evolved, and how brains became capable of this important behaviour.</p>
10abehavioral ecology10abehavioral neuroscience10abrain evolution10acall10aCognition10acomparative method10aintegrative biology10aneurogenetics10asong10atrait evolution10avocal production learning1 aWright, Timothy, F.1 aDerryberry, Elizabeth, P.  uhttps://bio.acousti.ca/nl/node/5841002858nas a2200253   4500008004100000020002200041245006900063210005600132520212800188653001402316653001602330653001102346653002202357653002002379653001002399653001602409653001802425653001002443653003102453100001902484700002902503700001702532856005502549       2019                        eng d  a978-981-13-8921-400aPlant Cognition: Ability to Perceive ‘Touch’ and ‘Sound’0 aPlant Cognition Ability to Perceive Touch and Sound3 a<p>Plants&rsquo; sessile life-style has enabled them to develop enormous sensitivity towards their dynamic, tactile and clamorous surroundings. Consequently, besides a range of different stimuli, plants can even perceive subtle stimuli, like &lsquo;touch&rsquo; and unanticipatedly &lsquo;sound&rsquo;. Importantly, touch sensitivity in plants is not just limited to sensitive plant and carnivorous species, which respond through eye-catchy movements; instead every plant and living plant cell senses and responds to mechanostimulation, whether intrinsic or extrinsic in nature. For instance, plant roots are extremely touch-sensitive, and upon encountering a bar- rier in soil, they are able to effectively redirect their growth to transcend it. Similarly, tendrils in climbing plants exhibit extreme sensitivity towards touch, which enable them to sense and grab a support in close vicinity. Unlike touch sensitivity, which was recognized long ago by Robert Hooke and Darwin, plants&rsquo; sensitivity towards sound has started gaining attention only recently. The past decade has seen major advances in this area of plant biology; many breakthrough discoveries were made that revealed the, otherwise debatable, ecological signifi- cance of sound perception in plants&rsquo; life. It has come to light that plants not just sense but also distinguish relevant sound among a mixture of irrelevant sound frequencies; plants distinguish buzz produced by a true pollinator among pollen thieves in the sophisticated process of buzz pollination. Similarly, plants distin- guish sound typical of a herbivore for elicitation of defence response. Interestingly, plant roots can sense sound of flowing water in order to direct their growth towards the water source. Given the similarity in the physical properties of touch and sound stimuli, many recently discovered signaling events and molecular players in touch and sound perception are noted to be common. However, in view of the contrasting responses tailored according to the stimuli, plants appear to distinguish well among the two in an ecologically meaningful manner.</p>
10aCognition10adevelopment10aGrowth10aMechanoperception10aPlant acoustics10asound10aThigmonasty10aThigmotropism10aTouch10aVolatile organic compounds1 aSopory, Sudhir1 aMishra, Ratnesh, Chandra1 aBae, Hanhong  uhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-13-8922-1