Communication of Stimulus Size and Shape in Alarm Calls of Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs, Cynomys gunnisoni

Abstract

Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni) emit multiple‐note alarm calls to terrestrial predators that vary in acoustic structure according to the eliciting stimulus. The characteristics of the predator that are salient with respect to alarm call variation, however, are poorly understood. Although the behavior of predators has been shown to influence alarm call production in other species of ground‐dwelling sciurids, the degree to which sciurid alarm calls describe physical characteristics of predators has not been addressed independently of the effects of variation in predator behavior. The effect of variation in the size and shape of the eliciting stimulus was studied by presenting silhouette models to a colony of prairie dogs and recording the alarm calls that were elicited. Discriminant function analysis on 7 variables measured from spectrograms revealed that the alarm calls differed with respect to silhouette. These results suggest that information with respect to stimulus size and shape is encoded in prairie dog alarm calls.

Derived vocalizations of geladas (Theropithecus gelada) and the evolution of vocal complexity in primates

“…Alarm calls can communicate the degree of risk involved [2,24], indicate predator type (i.e. aerial or terrestrial) [53,54], or combine information on risk and predator type [51]. Primates, in particular, are known to produce alarm vocalizations specific to predator type, eliciting appropriate responses in receivers [55][56][57].…”

Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification

“…For instance, California ground squirrels, Spermophilus beecheyi, produce alarm calls that vary based on urgency (Owings & Hennessy 1984), vervet monkeys, Cercophithecus aethiops, produce alarm calls that elicit different escape patterns (Seyfarth et al, 1980), and domestic cats produce meows that vary in their emotional effect on humans, and that also may vary acoustically based on the intensity of a cat's need to influence humans to respond (Nicastro & Owren 2003). Furthermore, in cases where one variable call type is used in many different contexts, closer evaluation frequently reveals that the call can be divided into subtypes based on a combination of acoustic parameters (Owings & Leger 1980;Gouzoules & Gouzoules 1989;Slobodchikoff et al 1991;Fischer et al 1995Fischer et al , 2001Ackers & Slobodchikoff 1999). Habituationedishabituation studies reveal that individuals within a species can distinguish between these subtypes (Cheney & Seyfarth 1988;Fischer 1998;Fischer et al 2000), and other playback studies show that the subtypes elicit different behavioural responses (Leger & Owings 1978;Cheney & Seyfarth 1982;Gouzoules & Gouzoules 1989;Fischer et al 1995;Rendall et al 1999).…”

Developing New Metrics for the Investigation of Animal Vocalizations

“…The corroboration is strong because it comes through the use of an entirely different analysis technique than that used in the original research by Slobodchikoff et al [16] or in subsequent work done by Slobodchikoff et al [15] and Ackers and Slobodchikoff [21]. The work described here also meets the requirement that the system of analysis be automated.…”