Predator stimuli and calling behavior of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis)

Evidence from different chickadee species (Poecile genus) indicates that birds can modify the note composition of their “chick-a-dee” calls in the presence of predator stimuli. Here, we tested the effects of predator models and the distance of those models on calls of three species foraging together at feeding stations: Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), both members of the Paridae family, and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis), a member of the Sittidae family. Model and distance affected seed-taking rates in all three species. “Chick-a-dee” calling rates were higher in the predator context for both chickadees and titmice, but we detected no predator context effects on “quank” call rates for nuthatches. Predator and distance contexts affected acoustic parameters of notes of the “chick-a-dee” calls of chickadees and titmice; no such effects were detected for nuthatch “quank” calls. These results suggest species differences in encoding of information in the primary social calls of these three species that commonly occur in multi-species flocks. Chickadees and titmice are “nuclear” species and nuthatches are “satellite” species, and these different roles might be related to the differences in vocal signaling that we detected.

[1]  Jeffrey R. Lucas,et al.  CHAPTER 13 “ Information ” and the chickadee call : Communicating with a complex vocal system , 2007 .

[2]  Leonard A. Brennan,et al.  Ecology and Behavior of Chickadees and Titmice: An Integrated Approach , 2007 .

[3]  C. Peres,et al.  Anti-predation benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian tamarins. , 1993, Folia primatologica; international journal of primatology.

[4]  H. Papoušek,et al.  Nonverbal Vocal Communication: Comparative and Developmental Approaches , 2008 .

[5]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  Todd M. Freeberg,et al.  Chick-a-dee call variation in Carolina chickadees and recruiting flockmates to food , 2009 .

[7]  Etienne Sirot,et al.  Social information, antipredatory vigilance and flight in bird flocks , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  Todd M. Freeberg,et al.  Complexity in the Chick-a-Dee Call of Carolina Chickadees (Poecile Carolinensis): Associations of Context and Signaler Behavior to Call Structure , 2008 .

[9]  E. Curio,et al.  The adaptive significance of avian mobbing: I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. , 1978 .

[10]  K. Sullivan.  Information Exploitation By Downy Woodpeckers in Mixed-Species Flocks , 1984 .

[11]  U. Ernst,et al.  The adaptive significance of avian mobbing: II. Cultural transmission of enemy recognition in blackbirds: Effectiveness and some constraints. , 2010 .

[12]  S. Haftorn.  CONTEXTS AND POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF ALARM CALLING IN THE WILLOW TIT, PARUS MONTANUS; THE PRINCIPLE OF ‘BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY’ , 2000 .

[13]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[14]  I. Krams,et al.  Effects of Cover on Loud Trill-Call and Soft Seet-Call Use in the Crested tit Parus Cristatus , 2008 .

[15]  E. Morton.  On the Occurrence and Significance of Motivation-Structural Rules in Some Bird and Mammal Sounds , 1977, The American Naturalist.

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

[17]  T. Freeberg.  Social Complexity Can Drive Vocal Complexity , 2006, Psychological science.

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

[19]  D. H. Morse,et al.  Ecological Aspects of Some Mixed-Species Foraging Flocks of Birds , 1970 .

[20]  Alison S. Garton.  Nonverbal vocal communication: Comparative and developmental approaches , 1993 .

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

[22]  P. Marler.  Chapter 5 – Bird calls: a cornucopia for communication , 2004 .

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

[24]  Philip Gaddis,et al.  A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VOCAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS OF THE CAROLINA CHICKADEE AND THE TUFTED TITMOUSE , 1979 .

[25]  Robin I. M. Dunbar.  Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language , 1996 .

[26]  Laurie L. Bloomfield,et al.  Chickadee vocal production and perception: An integrative approach to understanding acoustic communication , 2007 .

[27]  P. Marler,et al.  Nature's Music: The Science of Birdsong , 2004 .

[28]  Jack W. Bradbury,et al.  Principles of Animal Communication , 1998 .

[29]  E. Frankenberg,et al.  The Adaptive Significance of Avian Mobbing , 2010 .

[30]  R. R. Krausz.  Living in Groups , 2013 .

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

[32]  P. Bell.  Darwin's biological work , 1960 .

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

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

[35]  Wooseok Lee,et al.  Novel acoustic features for speech emotion recognition , 2009 .

[36]  Jessica L Owens,et al.  Variation in chick-a-dee calls of tufted titmice, Baeolophus bicolor: note type and individual distinctiveness. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  G. Ritchison.  Vocalizations of the white-breasted nuthatch , 1983 .

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

[39]  Jeffrey R. Lucas,et al.  Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[40]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[41]  Gerhard Manteuffel,et al.  Castration-induced vocalisation in domestic piglets, Sus scrofa: Complex and specific alterations of the vocal quality , 2005 .

[42]  K. Wells.  Animal Vocal Communication: A New Approach , 1999 .

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

[44]  J. Ekman.  ECOLOGY OF NON-BREEDING SOCIAL SYSTEMS OF PARUS , 1989 .

[45]  Laurie L. Bloomfield,et al.  Note types and coding in parid vocalizations. III: The chick-a-dee call of the Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) , 2005 .

[46]  L. Sasvári.  Great tits benefit from feeding in mixed-species flocks: a field experiment , 1992, Animal Behaviour.

[47]  Guy Cowlishaw,et al.  When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making , 2007, Biology Letters.