4.2 Article

Ultrasound from underground: cryptic communication in subterranean wild-living and captive northern mole voles (Ellobius talpinus)

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09524622.2021.1960191

关键词

Ellobius talpinus; mole vole; subterranean rodent; ultrasonic vocalisation

类别

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [19-14-00037]
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [19-04-00538a]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides the first evidence of ultrasonic vocalisations in the northern mole vole Ellobius talpinus, with two distinct types of vocalisations identified and differences in vocal frequency observed between wild and captive populations.
This study provides the first evidence of ultrasonic vocalisations (USVs) in a truly subterranean rodent, the northern mole vole Ellobius talpinus. Calls were recorded by attracting callers with a bait to burrow entrances, where they were mostly visible to researchers. USVs recorded from 14 different burrows in southern Russia were verified as belonging to Ellobius talpinus by comparison with USVs of two wild-captured young males and by comparison with USVs of four adults from a captive colony. As a first attempt at exploring the function of USV diversity, we defined upward-intense USVs, with a maximum fundamental frequency (f0) of 35.32 +/- 5.11 kHz, and variable-faint USVs, with a maximum f0 of 31.40 +/- 7.78 kHz. Compared to variable-faint USVs, the upward-intense USVs were longer, had a larger depth of frequency modulation and were produced at high intensity in regular series. The upward-intense USVs were lower in the maximum and peak frequencies in the wild than in captivity, whereas the variable-faint USVs did not differ between recordings from the wild and from captivity. We discuss that similar ranges of acoustic variables found in USVs of Ellobius talpinus and surface-dwelling Arvicolinae species do not support the hypothesis that subterranean life has drastically reduced ultrasonic vocalisation in rodents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据