| Literature DB >> 30333068 |
Ilya A Volodin1,2, Olga V Sibiryakova3, Nina A Vasilieva4, Elena V Volodina5, Vera A Matrosova6, Andrés J Garcia7, Francisco J Pérez-Barbería7, Laureano Gallego7, Tomás Landete-Castillejos7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studying animal vocal aging has potential implication in the field of animal welfare and for modeling human voice aging. The objective was to examine, using a repeated measures approach, the between-year changes of weight, social discomfort score (bites of other hinds on hind pelt), body condition score (fat reserves) and acoustic variables of the nasal (closed-mouth) and the oral (open-mouth) contact calls produced by farmed red deer hinds (Cervus elaphus) toward their young.Entities:
Keywords: Body weight and condition; Cervus elaphus; Female red deer; Mammal voice; Nasal and oral contact calls; Non-human senescence; Social discomfort measure; Ungulate; Welfare
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30333068 PMCID: PMC6192103 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3833-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Measured acoustic variables. a Spectrogram of hind oral (left) and nasal (right) calls. b Mean power spectrum of 0.05 s fragment of a nasal call. Designations: duration—call duration; f0max—the maximum fundamental frequency; f0beg—the fundamental frequency at the onset of a call; f0end—the fundamental frequency at the end of a call; fpeak—the frequency of maximum amplitude within a call; q25, q50 q75—the lower, the medium and the upper quartiles, covering respectively 25, 50 and 75% energy of a call spectrum. The spectrogram was created with Hamming window; 11,025 kHz sampling rate; FFT 1024 points; frame 50%; and overlap 93.75%. Original wav-files are available in Additional file 2
Values (mean ± SD) of oral and nasal hind call variables and repeated measures ANOVA results for comparison the mean values between 2011 and 2012 years separately for oral and nasal calls
| Acoustic variable | Nasal calls (n = 13 hinds) | Oral calls (n = 7 hinds) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2012 | ANOVA | 2011 | 2012 | ANOVA | |
| duration (s) | 0.84 ± 0.29 | 0.81 ± 0.28 | 0.68 ± 0.21 | 0.68 ± 0.22 | ||
| f0beg (Hz) | 139 ± 23 | 127 ± 30 |
| 141 ± 28 | 129 ± 16 | |
| f0max (Hz) | 180 ± 31 | 173 ± 30 |
| 184 ± 27 | 178 ± 34 | |
| f0end (Hz) | 88 ± 14 | 81 ± 21 | 88 ± 7 | 83 ± 7 |
| |
| df0 (Hz) | 91 ± 26 | 78 ± 24 |
| 96 ± 26 | 82 ± 31 | |
| fpeak (Hz) | 1076 ± 515 | 808 ± 601 | 1404 ± 308 | 1063 ± 308 | ||
| q25 (Hz) | 681 ± 186 | 667 ± 227 | 903 ± 218 | 887 ± 268 | ||
| q50 (Hz) | 1571 ± 261 | 1627 ± 282 | 1699 ± 123 | 1667 ± 261 | ||
| q75 (Hz) | 2526 ± 171 | 2739 ± 318 | 2532 ± 180 | 2616 ± 209 | ||
Designations: duration—call duration; f0beg—the fundamental frequency at the onset of a call; f0max—the maximum fundamental frequency of a call; f0end—the fundamental frequency at the end of a call; df0—the depth of frequency modulation, calculated as the difference between f0max and f0min; fpeak—the frequency of maximum amplitude within a call; q25, q50, q75—the lower, medium and upper quartiles of a call. Significant differences are highlighted in underlined
Values (mean ± SD) of weight, discomfort score and condition score variables and repeated measures ANOVA results for comparison the mean values between 2011 and 2012 years
| Variable | 2011 | 2012 | ANOVA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | 98.4 ± 10.4 | 105.6 ± 12.7 | |
| Discomfort score | 1.87 ± 0.70 | 1.21 ± 0.22 | |
| Condition score | 3.44 ± 0.23 | 3.94 ± 0.37 |
n = 13 hinds
Significant differences are highlighted in italic