Variation in chick-a-dee calls of a Carolina chickadee population, Poecile carolinensis: identity and redundancy within note types.

Chick-a-dee calls of chickadee species are structurally complex because calls possess a rudimentary syntax governing the ordering of their different note types. Chick-a-dee calls were recorded in an aviary from female and male birds from two field sites. This paper reports sources of variation of acoustical parameters of notes in these calls. There were significant sex and microgeographic differences in some of the measured parameters of the notes in the calls. In addition, the syntax of the call itself influenced characteristics of each of the notes. For example, calls with many introductory notes began with a note of higher frequency and longer duration, relative to calls with few introductory notes. Furthermore, the number of introductory notes influenced frequency and duration components of notes later in the call. Thus, single notes are predictive of the note composition of the signaler's call. This suggests that a receiver might gain the meaning in the call even if it hears only part of the call. Further, single notes within these complex calls can contain information enabling receivers to predict the sex of the signaler, and whether it is from the local population.

[1]  A. Gaunt An hypothesis concerning the relationship of syringeal structure to vocal abilities , 1983 .

[2]  John R. Meyer,et al.  Juvenile Dispersal and Development of Site-Fidelity in the Black-Capped Chickadee , 1979 .

[3]  Jeffrey Podos,et al.  A PERFORMANCE CONSTRAINT ON THE EVOLUTION OF TRILLED VOCALIZATIONS IN A SONGBIRD FAMILY (PASSERIFORMES: EMBERIZIDAE) , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[4]  Jack P. Hailman,et al.  Combinatorial animal communication with computable syntax: Chick-a-dee calling qualifies as ‘Language’ by structural linguistics , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  J. P. Hailman,et al.  The organization of major vocalizations in the paridae , 1989 .

[6]  S. Nowicki,et al.  Vocal plasticity in captive black-capped chickadees: the acoustic basis and rate of call convergence , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  Dorothy L. Mammen,et al.  Individual differences and within-flock convergence in chickadee calls , 1981, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  5 – Adaptations for Acoustic Communication in Birds: Sound Transmission and Signal Detection , 1982 .

[9]  Susan M. Smith The Black-Capped Chickadee: Behavioral Ecology and Natural History , 1992 .

[10]  E. Odum Annual Cycle of the Black-Capped Chickadee: 3 , 1942 .

[11]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE VOCALIZATIONS AND SYRINX OF THE COLLARED DOVE (STREPTOPELIA DECAOCTO) , 1997 .

[12]  C. E. Ho,et al.  A procedure for an automated measurement of song similarity , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  P. Marler,et al.  Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization , 1977, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[14]  T. J. Walker,et al.  Animal Communication: Techniques of Study and Results of Research , 1969 .

[15]  Can a Sexually Dimorphic Learned Birdsong be Used for Male-Female Recognition? , 1998 .

[16]  J. Hailman,et al.  The ‘chick-a-dee’ calls of Parus atricapillus: A recombinant system of animal communication compared with written English , 1985 .

[17]  Steve R. Witkin,et al.  The Importance of Directional Sound Radiation in Avian Vocalization , 1977 .

[18]  Acoustical and perceptual structures of sexually dimorphic distance calls in Bengalese finches (Lonchura striata domestica). , 1993 .

[19]  E. Odum Annual Cycle of the Black-Capped Chickadee: 2 , 1941 .

[20]  M. A. Cunningham,et al.  The Biology of Bird-Song Dialects , 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  O. N. Larsen,et al.  Role of syringeal vibrations in bird vocalizations , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  J. Lucas,et al.  Carolina Chickadee (Aves, Paridae, Poecile carolinensis) Vocalization Rates: Effects of Body Mass and Food Availability under Aviary Conditions , 1999 .

[23]  A. Yamaguchi A Sexually Dimorphic Learned Birdsong in the Northern Cardinal , 1998 .

[24]  Philip K Gaddis,et al.  STRUCTURE AND VARIABILITY IN THE VOCAL REPERTOIRE OF THE MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE , 1985 .

[25]  Jack P. Hailman,et al.  Constraints on the Structure of Combinatorial “Chick-a-dee” Calls , 1987 .

[26]  Jack P. Hailman,et al.  The chick-a-dee call system of the Mexican chickadee , 1994 .

[27]  Scott A. MacDougall-Shackleton,et al.  Animal Signals: Signalling and Signal Design in Animal Communication , 2001 .

[28]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  How do king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus apply the mathematical theory of information to communicate in windy conditions? , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Todd M Freeberg,et al.  Receivers respond differently to chick-a-dee calls varying in note composition in Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  William J. Smith,et al.  The Behavior of Communicating: An Ethological Approach , 1980 .

[31]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

[32]  Robert W. Ficken,et al.  VOCAL REPERTOIRE OF THE BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE , 1978 .

[33]  W. Rice ANALYZING TABLES OF STATISTICAL TESTS , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[34]  PIERRE JOUVENTIN,et al.  Finding a parent in a king penguin colony: the acoustic system of individual recognition , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[35]  S. Nowicki,et al.  Flock-specific recognition of chickadee calls , 1983, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[36]  Susan T. Smith Communication and other social behavior in Parus carolinensis , 1972 .

[37]  M. Ficken Acoustic characteristics of alarm calls associated with predation risk in chickadees , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[38]  S. Peters,et al.  The development of within-song type variation in song sparrows , 1999, Animal Behaviour.