Post on 19-Dec-2021
transcript
10/14/2008
1
Using microphone arrays to explore communication strategies in songbirdsTalk Outline:1.Communication networks in
1
networks in temperate chickadees
2.Vocal duetting in neotropical wrens
Daniel MennillUniversity of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Signaller Receiver
Animal Communication
• “Communication involves two individuals, a signaller and a receiver”
2
Bradbury& Vehrencamp’sAnimal Communication
Decision and response
Information
Environment
Communication Networks
• Communication Network: More than two individuals signalling and/or receiving simultaneously
3
McGregor’s Animal Communication Networks
Communication Networks
• Eavesdropping: Gaining information by listening to a signalling interaction between others without being directly involved in that interaction
4
Communication Networks
• Audience Effects: Changes in signaller behaviourthat arise from the presence of receivers
5
Acoustic Location System
6
10/14/2008
2
7
Mic #1
Mic #2
Acoustic Location System8
Mic #3
Mic #4
x=43.2, y=17.6
x=19.1, y=20.4
Acoustic Location System9
x=43.2, y=17.6
Black‐capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus)10
Black‐capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus)11
6
5
cy (kHz)
Variation in song timing
Territorial male chickadees engage in aggressive countersinging interactions with rivals
male 1 male 1 male 1male 2 male 2 male 2
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
4
3
Time (s)
Freq
uenc
Variation in song frequency
g g
Mennill & Otter (2007) Ecology and Behavior of Chickadees and Titmice
10/14/2008
3
Previous playback experiments show…13
Mennill & Ratcliffe (2004) Behaviour
Females eavesdrop on male‐male contests
Males eavesdrop on male‐male contests
…but has not been examined in a natural context.
Mennill et al. (2002) Science
Goals
Part 1: Use an Acoustic Location System to examine countersinging and movement behaviour at a network scale
l k
14
Part 2: Use multi‐speaker playback to examine neighbourhood‐level responses to aggressive interactions
15
09
06 07
1515
16
11
0909
10 14
13
BASE
12
15
010101
02
0403
08
05
1
2
3
4
5
67
98
We analyzed 100 countersinging contests in
10 neighbourhoods
10 20 30 400Time (s)
1112
13
14
1516
910
1
3
2
4
8
7
65
17
50 m
9
12
10
11
1413
16 15
Males moved apart in 46% of contests
Males approached in
18
50 m
No movement in 3% of contests
pp53% of contests
10/14/2008
4
Results of multi‐channel recordings:
• Contests in which males approached each other contained more matching exchanges
matched
son
gs
3
4
6*
5
19
Malesmove apart
Malesapproacheach other
Num
bero
f m
0
1
2
Fitzsimmons, Foote, Ratcliffe, Mennill (2008) Animal Behaviour
Multi‐speaker Playback20
Playback simulates a song contest between
two rival males
3Multi‐speaker Playback21
9
Multi‐speaker Playback22
50 m
Results of multi‐speaker playback:
• Song output from all males in neighbourhoodwas significantly higher after aggressive playback
• Strong evidence for 15
20
25
odsong
outpu
tngs/min)
*
23
gsocial eavesdropping
0
5
10
Aggressive Submissive
Playback treatment
Neighbo
urho (son
Fitzsimmons, Foote, Ratcliffe, Mennill (2008) Animal Behaviour
Conclusions from chickadee array recordings
• Song matching appears to function as a conventional signal of aggression; birds approach matching rivals
• Territorial males eavesdrop on
24
Territorial males eavesdrop on interactions that take place beyond territory boundaries
• Dyadic interactions have a ripple effect throughout neighbourhoods
10/14/2008
5
Further reading on chickadee networks• Fitzsimmons, Foote, Ratcliffe, Mennill (2008) Frequency matching,overlapping and movement behaviour in diurnal countersinginginteractions of black‐capped chickadees. Animal Behaviour 75:1913‐1920.
• Fitzsimmons, Foote, Ratcliffe, Mennill (2008) Eavesdropping andcommunication networks revealed through playback and an acousticlocation system. Behavioral Ecology 19:824‐829.
25
• Foote, Fitzsimmons, Mennill,Ratcliffe (2008) Male chickadees
t h i hb i t ti l tmatch neighbours interactively atdawn: support for the socialdynamics hypothesis. BehavioralEcology (online first).
• Foote, Fitzsimmons, Mennill,Ratcliffe (2008) Tied to the nest:Male black‐capped chickadeesdecrease dawn chorus movementbehaviour when their mate isfertile. Animal Behaviour 76:1227‐1233.
Rufous‐and‐white Wren (Thryothorus rulfabus)
26
Bird songs are complex vocalizations produced by males during the breeding season. They play an important role in territory defense and mate attraction.
27
Alcock’s Animal Behavior Catchpole & Slater’s Bird Song
Duets: Complex, coordinated vocalizations produced jointly by members of a mated pair
28
Rufous‐and‐white Wren (Thryothorus rulfabus)
29
Stu
Resident neotropical songbirds
30
10/14/2008
6
31 32
33 34
35
3
4
cy (kHz)
Rufous-and-white Wren Song36
0
1
2
0 21
Freq
uenc
Time (s)
0.5 1.5
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2005) Auk
10/14/2008
7
0
1
2
3
4
Rufous-and-white Wren Duets
malefemale
0 421 30
1
2
3
5
4
37
0 421 3
malefemale
Rufous-and-white Wren Duets
0 421 30
1
2
3
5
4
38
0 421 3
• Recorded 19 colour-banded pairs of rufous-and-white wrens with an eight-microphone acoustic location system during the early breeding
Spatial Analysis of Duetting39
the early breeding season
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2008) Current Biology
20
01
50
25
0 Mic 1
Mic 2
Mic 3
Mic 4
01
02
0403
05
40
01
00
0 100
50
50 150Meters
Mic 5
Mic 6
Mic 7
Mic 8
06
07
08
• Tremendous variation in the distance between male and female duet partners
50
60
130
140
150
160
Number of duets
Minimum: 0.39 m
Average: 19.2 m
41
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Distance between duet partners (n = 525)
0
10
20
30
40
50of duets recorded
Maximum: 144.3 m
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2008) Current Biology
• Partners were closer together during duets where female sang first, male sang second
Distance betweenduetting 10
15
20 *
42
Paired t-testt=2.1, p=0.05, n=16
Sex of duet creator
duetting partners (m)
Male Female0
5
10
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2008) Current Biology
10/14/2008
8
20
01
50
25
0
• Duets were sometimes given in bouts where pairs sang several duets in a row
• During a significant majority of these bouts (44 out of 64) the male and female
43
01
00
0 100
50
50 150Meters
moved closer together between subsequent duets
(Binomial test: p=0.01)
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2008) Current Biology
Polo!Marco?
44
20
03
00
25
0
• Duets were given throughout territories, not concentrated at territory boundaries
45
Meters0 10050 150
01
00
50
15
0
250200 300 350 400 450
A A B
• Duets were given throughout territories, not concentrated at territory boundaries
Distance
25
30
46
ANOVAF2,54=7.8p=0.001
to territory edge (m)
15
20
DuettingMales
DuettingFemales
RandomPoints
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2008) Current Biology
• Duets were often given near nests2
00
30
02
50
N
Meters
47
Meters0 10050 150
01
00
50
15
0
250200 300 350 400 450
N
N
• Duets were often given near nests
A A B
Distance 50
70
60
48
ANOVAF2,54=7.8p=0.001
Distance to nest (m)
30
40
50
DuettingMales
DuettingFemales
RandomPoints
Mennill & Vehrencamp (2008) Current Biology
10/14/2008
9
• Duetting behaviour is consistent with the acoustic contact hypothesis– Birds duet when they are physically separated,
often by great distances– Duets are not focused at territory boundaries
Conclusions from wren array recordings49
– Birds approach each other during duet bouts
Further reading on wren duets• Mennill, Vehrencamp (2008) Context‐dependent functions of avian duetsrevealed through microphone array recordings and multi‐speaker playback.Current Biology 18:1314‐1319
• Topp, Mennill (2008) Seasonal variation in the duetting of rufous‐and‐white wrens. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 62:1107‐1117.
• Mennill (2006) Aggressive responses of male and female rufous‐and‐whitewrens to stereo duet playback. Animal Behaviour 17:219‐226.
• Mennill, Burt, Fristrup, Vehrencamp (2006) Accuracy of an acoustic
50
location system for monitoring the position of duetting tropical songbirds.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119:2832‐2839.
Using microphone arrays to explore communication strategies in songbirdsConclusions:• Microphone array recordings enhance our understanding of animal communication
• They facilitate monitoring at a
51
They facilitate monitoring at a neighbourhood scale
• They facilitate monitoring behaviour in visually‐obstructed environments
Daniel MennillUniversity of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada
AcknowledgementsCollaborators: Stéphanie Doucet (University of Windsor),
Laurene Ratcliffe (Queen’s University), Sandy Vehrencamp (Cornell University)
Grad Students: Nicole Barker, David Bradley, Sandra Gallo, Julie Koloff, Van La, Karan Odom, Anneka Osmun, Lauren Fitzsimmons, Kyle Swiston, Steph Topp, Sarah Tremain, & Sandra Valderrama
52
The Mennill Sound Analysis Lab 2008
Technical Assistance: John Burt (www.syrinxpc.com), the Bioacoustic Research Program at Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology
Field Assistance: J. Baldock, R. Bull, S Doucet, R. Jamieson, S. Lippold, A. McKellar, D. Potvin, K. Winger (chickadee research), and V. Connolly, D. Moseley, S. Doucet (wren research)
Logistic Support: Queen’s University Biology Station (chickadee research), Santa Rosa National Park (wren resesarch)
Acknowledgements53
NSERC of Canada
University of Windsor
National Geographic Society
Canada’s Foundation for Innovation
Ontario’s Early Researcher Award Program
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Funding: