The importance of individual variation in the alarm calls of Gunnison's prairie dogs

2019 ◽  
Vol 150 ◽  
pp. 59-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.J. Loughry ◽  
Mariah Oeser ◽  
Corey Devin Anderson ◽  
John L. Hoogland
1998 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 1265-1272 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. N. Slobodchikoff ◽  
S. H. Ackers ◽  
M. Van Ert

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (11) ◽  
pp. 1092-1100
Author(s):  
W.J. Loughry ◽  
M. Oeser ◽  
J.L. Hoogland

Many animals emit vocalizations in a repetitive series, but are all the calls within a series structurally the same? To answer this question, we recorded the barks of adult female Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni (Baird, 1855)) during 5 min experimental presentations of several terrestrial stimuli. We measured eight variables (primarily pitch and duration measures) of the first, middle, and last barks in each bout of barking produced by each of 24 females, as well as the duration of inter-bout intervals, the number of barks per bout, and the rate of barking per bout. We found that first barks were significantly longer and higher pitched than middle or last barks. Some of these differences were affected by the number of barks in a bout. Regardless of bark position, barks became longer and lower pitched in later bouts, and inter-bout intervals, number of barks per bout, and the rate of barking per bout all declined in later bouts. Our results show that bark structure can vary even within a single context and within a short period of time. Thus, variation due to call position within and across bouts of calling is a potentially important confound for studies examining other sources of acoustic variation.


1991 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 713-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.N. Slobodchikoff ◽  
J. Kiriazis ◽  
C. Fischer ◽  
E. Creef

2012 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 741-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. N. Slobodchikoff ◽  
William R. Briggs ◽  
Patricia A Dennis ◽  
Anne-Marie C. Hodge

Abstract Some animals have the capacity to produce different alarm calls for terrestrial and aerial predators. However, it is not clear what cognitive processes are involved in generating these calls. One possibility is the position of the predator: Anything on the ground receives a terrestrial predator call, and anything in the air receives an aerial predator call. Another possibility is that animals are able to recognize the physical features of predators and incorporate those into their calls. As a way of elucidating which of these mechanisms plays a primary role in generating the structure of different calls, we performed two field experiments with Gunnison’s prairie dogs. First, we presented the prairie dogs with a circle, a triangle, and a square, each moving across the colony at the same height and speed. Second, we presented the prairie dogs with two squares of differing sizes. DFA statistics showed that 82.6 percent of calls for the circle and 79.2 percent of the calls for the triangle were correctly classified, and 73.3 percent of the calls for the square were classified as either square or circle. Also, 100 percent of the calls for the larger square and 90 percent of the calls for the smaller square were correctly classified. Because both squares and circles are features of terrestrial predators and triangles are features of aerial predators, our results suggest that prairie dogs might have a cognitive mechanism that labels the abstract shape and size of different predators, rather than the position of the predator.


2006 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Kiriazis ◽  
C.N. Slobodchikoff

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Hoogland ◽  
Dean E. Biggins ◽  
Nathaniel Blackford ◽  
David A. Eads ◽  
Dustin Long ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document