4.5 Article

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

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 187-196

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-004-0847-9

Keywords

Carolina chickadee; chick-a-dee call; Poecile; syntax; vocal communication

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available