Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 187–196

Chick-a-dee call syntax, social context, and season affect vocal responses of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis)

  • Barbara A. Clucas
  • Todd M. Freeberg
  • Jeffrey R. Lucas
Original Article

Abstract

Chick-a-dee calls in many chickadee (Poecile) species are common vocal signals used in a diversity of social contacts. The calls consist of four notes, A, B, C, and D, which follow simple rules of syntax (note ordering and composition) to generate many unique call types. We used field playbacks with Carolina chickadees, P. carolinensis, to ask whether violations of a syntactical rule affected their vocal responses. We show that chickadee responses to typical calls (e.g. AAAACCCC and CCCCDDDD) differ from responses to atypical calls (e.g. CACACACA and DCDCDCDC) depending on playback note composition, season, and social context (presence of heterospecifics). In the fall/winter, playbacks of typical calls with A and C notes elicited the greatest number of A and B notes in chick-a-dee call responses and typical calls with D notes elicited the greatest number of C notes, when in the presence of heterospecifics. In contrast, the corresponding atypical calls did not elicit similar responses. This suggests communicative significance is lost in calls that violate a rule of syntax in the fall/winter. In the spring, neither chickadee feebeefeebay song rate nor chick-a-dee calls responses differed by playback type. We suggest that call syntax is less salient for mated pairs in the spring than it is for fall/winter flocks that rely more on conspecific communication for foraging success and flock cohesion. This study represents the first experimental evidence that chickadees attend to both note composition and ordering in chick-a-dee calls.

Keywords

Carolina chickadee Chick-a-dee call Poecile Syntax Vocal communication 

References

  1. Balaban E (1988) Bird song syntax — learned intraspecific variation is meaningful. Proc Natl Acad of Sci USA 85:3657–3660Google Scholar
  2. Baker MC, Bjerke TK, Lampe HU, Espmark YO (1987) Sexual-response of female yellowhammers to differences in regional song dialects and repertoire sizes. Anim Behav 35:395–401Google Scholar
  3. Bloomfield LL, Sturdy CB, Phillmore LS, Weisman RG (2003) Open-ended categorization of chick-a-dee calls by black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla). J Comp Psychol 117:290–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein DT, Armitage KB (1997) Does sociality drive the evolution of communicative complexity? A comparative test with ground-dwelling sciurid alarm calls. Am Nat 150:179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer R (1961) Comparative notes on the life history of the Carolina chickadee. Wilson Bull 73:348–373Google Scholar
  7. Cimprich DA, Grubb TC (1994) Consequences for Carolina chickadees of foraging with tufted titmice in winter. Ecology 75:1615–1625Google Scholar
  8. Dixon KL (1963) Some aspects of social organization in the Carolina chickadee. Proc Int Ornithol Congr 13:240–258Google Scholar
  9. Dolby AS, Grubb TC (2000) Social context affects risk taking by a satellite species in a mixed species foraging group Behav Ecol 11:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Endler JA (1991) Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions Vision Res 31:587–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esser K, Condon CJ, Suga N, Kanwal JS (1997) Syntax processing by auditory cortical neurons in the FM-FM area of the mustached bat Pteronotus parnelli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:14019–14024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans CS, Marler P (1995) Language and animal communication: parallels and contrasts. In Roitblat HL and Meyer J-A (eds) Comparative approaches to cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp 341–382Google Scholar
  13. Ficken MS, Hailman ED, Hailman JP (1994) The chick-a-dee call system of the Mexican chickadee. Condor 96:70–82Google Scholar
  14. Freeberg TM, Lucas JR (2002) Receivers respond differently to chick-a-dee calls varying in note composition in Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis). Anim Behav 63:837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeberg TM, Lucas JR, Clucas B (2003) Variation in chick-a-dee calls of a population of Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis: identity and redundancy within note types. JASA 113:2127–2136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaddis PK (1980) Mixed flocks, accipiters, and antipredator behavior. Condor 82:348–349Google Scholar
  17. Gaddis PK (1985) Structure and variability in the vocal repertoire of the mountain chickadee. Wilson Bull 97:30–46Google Scholar
  18. Ghanzanfar AA, Smith-Rohrberg D, Hauser MD (2001) The role of temporal cues in rhesus monkey vocal recognition: orienting asummetries to reversed calls. Brain Behav Evol 58:163–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hailman JP,Ficken MS (1986) Combinational animal communication with computable syntax: chick-a-dee calling qualifies as ‘language’ by structural linguistics. Anim Behav 34:1899–1901Google Scholar
  20. Hailman JP, Ficken MS,Ficken RW (1985) The “chick-a-dee” calls of Parus atricapillus: a recombinant system of animal communication compared with written English. Semiotica 56:191–224Google Scholar
  21. Hailman JP, Ficken MS, Ficken RW (1987) Constraints on the structure of combinatorial chick-a-dee calls. Ethology 75:62–80Google Scholar
  22. Holland J, Dabelsteen T, Paris AL (2000) Coding in the song of the wren: importance of rhythmicity, syntax and element structure. Anim Behav 60:463–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanwal JS, Matsumura S, Ohlemiller K, Suga N (1994) Analysis of acoustic elements and syntax in communication sounds emitted by moustached bats. J Acoust Soc Am 96:1229–1254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Krams I (2001) Communication in crested tits and the risk of predation. Anim Behav 61:1065–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kroodsma DE (1977) Correlates of song organization among North American wrens. Am Nat 111:995–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kroodsma DE, and Miller EH (eds) (1996) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Littell, RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, N. C.Google Scholar
  29. Marten K, Marler P (1977) Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. Behav Ecol 11:110–114Google Scholar
  30. Mitani JC, Marler P (1989) A phonological analysis of male gibbon singing behaviour. Behavior 109:20–45Google Scholar
  31. Morse DH (1970) Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecol Monogr 40:119–168Google Scholar
  32. Okanoya K, Tsumaki S, Honda E (2000) Perception of temporal properties in self-generated song by Bengalese finches (Lonchura striata var. domestica). J Comp Psychol 114:239–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ord TJ, Blumstein DT, Evans C S (2002) Ecology and signal evolution in lizards. Biol J Linn Soc 77:127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Owings DH, Morton ES (1998) Animal vocal communication: a new approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Pravosudov VV, Grubb TC (1999) Effects of dominance on vigilance in avian social groups. Auk 116:241–246Google Scholar
  36. Robinson JG (1984) Syntactic structures in the vocalizations of wedge-capped capuchin monkeys, Cebus olivaceus. Behavior 90:46–79Google Scholar
  37. Ryan MJ (1985) The Túngara frog: A study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS (1982) Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a neotropical frog. Am Nat 119:136–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SAS Institute (1994) SAS/STAT Software. Release 6.09 and Release 6.08 maintenance enhancements for PROC MIXED. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  40. Smith ST (1972) Communication and other social behavior in Parus carolinensis. Publ Nuttall Ornithol Club 11:1–125Google Scholar
  41. Smith SM (1991) The black-capped chickadee: behavioral ecology and natural history. Cornell University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Sullivan KA (1984) Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks Behavior 91:294–311Google Scholar
  43. Wiley RH (1991) Associations of song properties with habitats for territorial oscine birds of Eastern North America. Am Nat 138:973–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wrangham RW (1977) Feeding behaviour of chimpanzees in Gombe National Park, Tanzania. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Primate ecology: studies of feeding and ranging behaviour in lemurs, monkeys, and apes. Academic Press, New York, pp 503–538Google Scholar
  45. Zuberbuhler K (2002) A syntactic rule in forest monkey communication. Anim Behav 63: 293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara A. Clucas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Todd M. Freeberg
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jeffrey R. Lucas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Animal Behavior Graduate GroupUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations