The versatility of graded acoustic measures in classification of predation threats by the tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor: exploring a mixed framework for threat communication

Many mammal and bird species respond to predator encounters with alarm vocalizations that generate risk-appropriate responses in listeners. Two conceptual frameworks are typically applied to the information encoded in alarm calls and to associated anti-predator behaviors. ‘Functionally referential’ alarm systems encode nominal classes or categories of risk in distinct call types that refer to distinct predation-risk situations. ‘Risk-based’ alarms encode graded or ranked threat-levels by varying the production patterns of the same call types as the urgency of predation threat changes. Recent work suggests that viewing alarm-response interactions as either referential or risk-based may oversimplify how animals use information in decision-making. Specifically, we explore whether graded alarm cues may be useful in classifying risks, supporting a referential decision-making framework. We presented predator (hawk, owl, cat, snake) and control treatments to captive adult tufted titmice Baeolophus bicolor and recorded their vocalizations, which included ‘chick-a-dee’ mobbing calls (composed of chick and D notes), ‘seet’ notes, two types of contact notes (‘chip’, ‘chink’), and song. No single call type was uniquely associated with any treatment and the majority of acoustic measures varied significantly among treatments (46 of 60). The strongest models (ANOVA and classification tree analysis) grouped hawk with cat and owl, and control with snake, and were based on the number or proportion of a) chick and D notes per chick-a-dee call, b) chip versus chink notes produced following treatment exposure, and c) the frequency metrics of other note types. We conclude that (1) the predation-threat information available in complex titmouse alarm calls was largely encoded in graded acoustic measures that were (2) numerous and variable across treatments and (3) could be used singly or in combinations for either ranking or classification of threats. We call attention to the potential use of mixed threat identification strategies, where risk-based signal information may be used in referential decision-making contexts.

[1]  T. Halliday,et al.  The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians , 1986 .

[2]  P. Gaddis Mixed Flocks, Accipiters, and Antipredator Behavior , 1980 .

[3]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  Classification and regression trees , 2011, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[4]  Presence of other species may counter seasonal decline in breeding success: a field experiment with pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca , 2005 .

[5]  M. Braga,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis , 2018, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[6]  J. Terborgh,et al.  Multi-Species Territoriality in Neotropical Foraging Flocks , 1979 .

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

[8]  C. Sturdy,et al.  Statistical classification of black-capped (Poecile atricapillus) and mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli) call notes. , 2006, Journal of comparative psychology.

[9]  P. Kappeler,et al.  Anti-predator behavior of group-living Malagasy primates: mixed evidence for a referential alarm call system , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[10]  April M. Becker,et al.  MOBBING CALLS OF BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEES: EFFECTS OF URGENCY ON CALL PRODUCTION , 2002 .

[11]  Mikko Mönkkönen,et al.  Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review , 2002 .

[12]  Erick Greene,et al.  Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  D. Blumstein,et al.  Alarm calling in yellow-bellied marmots: I. The meaning of situationally variable alarm calls , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  Kimberly Maute,et al.  HETEROSPECIFIC FACILITATION OF FOREST-BOUNDARY CROSSING BY MOBBING UNDERSTORY BIRDS IN NORTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA , 2004 .

[15]  Ken A. Otter,et al.  The ecology and behavior of chickadees and titmice : an integrated approach , 2007 .

[16]  Paul A. Garber,et al.  On the move : how and why animals travel in groups , 2000 .

[17]  Robert D. Magrath,et al.  Communicating about danger: urgency alarm calling in a bird , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  Laurie L. Bloomfield,et al.  Note types and coding in parid vocalizations. II: The chick-a-dee call of the mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli) , 2004 .

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

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

[21]  Thomas A. Contreras,et al.  Characterizing complex mixed-species bird flocks using an objective method for determining species participation , 2008, Journal of Ornithology.

[22]  Peter Marler,et al.  Bird Calls: Their Potential for Behavioral Neurobiology , 2004, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

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

[24]  Todd M Freeberg,et al.  Variation in chick-a-dee calls of a Carolina chickadee population, Poecile carolinensis: identity and redundancy within note types. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  Signalers and receivers in animal communication. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  Klaus Zuberbühler,et al.  Language evolution: Semantic combinations in primate calls , 2006, Nature.

[27]  L. Wiles,et al.  Exploratory data analysis to identify factors influencing spatial distributions of weed seed banks , 2004, Weed Science.

[28]  Jack P. Hailman,et al.  SYNOPSIS III: Complexities in vocal communication , 2007 .

[29]  G. Langham,et al.  Why pishing works: Titmouse (Paridae) scolds elicit a generalized response in bird communities , 2006 .

[30]  M. Manser,et al.  The information banded mongooses extract from heterospecific alarms , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

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

[32]  P. Marler,et al.  Characteristics of Some Animal Calls , 1955, Nature.

[33]  Erick Greene,et al.  Allometry of Alarm Calls: Black-Capped Chickadees Encode Information About Predator Size , 2005, Science.

[34]  P. Marler,et al.  Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. , 1980, Science.

[35]  M. Manser,et al.  The acoustic structure of suricates' alarm calls varies with predator type and the level of response urgency , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  K. Zuberbühler,et al.  A forest monkey’s alarm call series to predator models , 2008, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[37]  Kurt Hammerschmidt,et al.  Functionally Referential Alarm Calls in Tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis and Saguinus mystax) – Evidence from Playback Experiments , 2006 .

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

[39]  R. Greenberg Birds of Many Feathers: The Formation and Structure of Mixed Species Flocks of Forest Birds , 2001 .

[40]  S. L. Lima Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North American birds , 1993 .

[41]  John W. Tukey,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis. , 1979 .

[42]  Eastern chipmunks increase their perception of predation risk in response to titmouse alarm calls , 2008 .

[43]  Burt P. Kotler Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals, Tim Caro. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2005), pp. xv+591. Price £27.00 paperback , 2006 .

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

[45]  D. Blumstein Golden-marmot alarm calls. I: The production of situationally specific vocalizations , 1995 .

[46]  T. Grubb,et al.  Benefits to satellite members in mixed-species foraging groups: an experimental analysis , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[47]  Daniel T. Blumstein,et al.  The evolution of functionally referential alarm communication: Multiple adaptations; multiple constraints , 1999 .

[48]  W. Latimer,et al.  A Comparative Study of the Songs and Alarm Calls of some Parus Species , 1977 .