Black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) alter alarm call duration and peak frequency in response to traffic noise

Abstract

Anthropogenic noise is an often-overlooked byproduct of urbanization and affects the soundscape in which birds communicate. Previous studies assessing the impact of traffic noise have focused on bird song, with many studies demonstrating the ability of birds to raise song frequency in the presence of low-frequency traffic noise to avoid masking. Less is known about the impact of traffic noise on avian alarm calls, which is surprising given the degree to which predator information within alarm calls may impact fitness. The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of traffic noise on the Black-capped Chickadees ( Poecile atricapillus ), a small non-migratory songbird with a well-studied and information-rich alarm call. We studied birds at eight locations in Stark County, Ohio, from 15 January to 7 March 2016, and used a taxidermic mount of an Eastern Screech-Owl to elicit alarm calls. In half of the trials, a pre-recorded traffic noise track was also broadcasted at 50 decibels. In noise trials, chickadee calls contained more introductory notes (P < 0.001), more total notes (P < 0.001), were of longer duration (P < 0.001), and had lower introductory and D-note peak frequencies (P = 0.032 and P = 0.041, respectively). No differences were noted in the number of D-notes per call between noise and control trials. Modifying alarm call duration and frequency, without changing the number of D-notes, may be a strategy that chickadees use to convey predator information and to coordinate a threat-appropriate mobbing response when it is not possible to change call type. Our results add to the small, but growing, literature documenting the effects of anthropogenic noise on avian alarm calls, demonstrate the flexibility and complexity of chickadee calls given in response to predators, and may partially explain why chickadees adapt well to urban areas.

Seasonality and social factors, but not noise pollution, influence the song characteristics of two leaf warbler species

“…Lack of noise-related bird song divergence may be due to the relatively low variation in amplitude, or other noise features present within the song frequency range of studied species. However, certain species like the Black-capped Chickadees Poecile atricapillus , were found to demonstrate a high degree of spectral and temporal call flexibility in response to expeimental traffic noise reaching about 50 dB [ 70 ]. Birds may also possess a noise level threshold beyond which they start to modify their song characteristics in a certain way.…”

Mobbing in animals: A thorough review and proposed future directions

“…We describe each of them below. Several metrics are frequently used when examining mob calls, including the number of individuals calling, (Arnold, 2000;Coomes, McIvor, & Thornton, 2019;Królikowska, Szymkowiak, Laidlaw, & Kuczyński, 2016), call type (Carlson, Healy, & Templeton, 2017b;Suzuki, 2014) call rate, (Bartmess-LeVasseur, Branch, Browning, Owens, & Freeberg, 2010;Coppinger, Kania, Lucas, Sieving, & Freeberg, 2020;Cross & Rogers, 2006), and detailed acoustic measurements (Carlson, Greene, & Templeton, 2020;Courter, Perruci, McGinnis, & Rainieri, 2020;Furrer & Manser, 2009;Ha et al, 2020;Kalb & Randler, 2019;Manser et al, 2014).…”

Mobbing in animals: a thorough review and proposed future directions

“…Currently, mobbing is measured in six main ways in the literature, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. Courter, Perruci, McGinnis, & Rainieri, 2020;Ha et al, 2020;Kalb & Randler, 2019;peak frequency, Carlson, Greene, & Templeton, 2020;Furrer & Manser, 2009;Manser et al, 2014). While many studies have illuminated how different species encode information in their mobbing calls about threat, we still know very little about which individuals in a group call during mobbing events (i.e., do all individuals call, or just certain ones; but see (Francis et al, 1989;Gehlbach & Leverett, 1995;Griesser & Ekman, 2005; and how much these calls actually reflect the caller's perceived level of threat vs. the predator's actual level of threat (but see: Carlson, Greene, et al, 2020).…”