| Literature DB >> 31533798 |
Krzysztof Deoniziak1,2, Tomasz S Osiejuk3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urbanisation has been shown to influence many aspects of animal vocal communication. Much attention has been paid to anthropogenic noise, which is often described as one of the most challenging disturbances for urban dwellers. While a large body of literature describes associations between vocal behavior of avian populations and background noise level, most of these studies were conducted on species with relatively simple songs and small repertoire sizes. This study focuses on the song thrush, Turdus philomelos, a common Eurasian songbird with a complex singing style and large syllable repertoire. Our objective was to determine whether frequency, repertoire and temporal organisation of song parameters vary between birds inhabiting urban and adjacent forest habitats in which ambient noise levels differ.Entities:
Keywords: Animal communication; Anthropogenic noise; Birdsong; Songbirds; Turdus philomelos; Urban ecology; Urbanisation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31533798 PMCID: PMC6749692 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-019-0255-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Fig. 1Spectrogram and waveform of typical song thrush syllables categorized as whistles and twitters
Differences in song thrush song characteristics between studied populations
| Variable | Urban 95% CI | Forest 95% CI | t/ | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Whistle minimum frequency | 2465.4–2538.9 | 2312.0–2421.7 | 3.778 |
|
| Whistle peak frequency | 2978.0–3112.5 | 2803.6–2945.9 | 3.369 |
| |
| Twitter minimum frequency | 3939.2–4254.6 | 3823.2–4051.1 | 1.725 | 0.090 | |
| Twitter peak frequency | 5149.8–5459.2 | 5008.9–5262.4 | 1.725 | 0.090 | |
| B | Syllable repertoire | 343.58–422.85 | 276.05–335.72 | 3.246 |
|
| Whistle repertoire | 117.78–146.48 | 97.89–118.96 | 2.787 |
| |
| Twitter repertoire | 216.14–286.04 | 172.83–222.08 | 2.649 |
| |
| Twitter fraction | 433.06–543.64 | 366.31–462.49 | 2.035 |
| |
| C | Syllable duration | 0.10–0.11 | 0.10–0.11 | − 0.337 | 0.737 |
| Inter-syllable intervals | 0.33–0.42 | 0.36–0.45 | − 0.715 | 0.474 | |
| Syllable rate | 122.19–145.07 | 116.64–136.93 | 0.898 | 0.373 | |
| Redundancy index | 0.20–0.24 | 0.22–0.26 | − 1.138 | 0.260 | |
| Linearity index | 0.44–0.54 | 0.36–0.44 | 2.811 |
|
Characteristics of song parameters describing (A) frequency, (B) repertoire and (C) temporal organization. Statistics: Mann–Whitney’s U-test (inter-syllable intervals) and Student's t-tests (all other variables). Significant differences are in italics
General linear models assessing variation in song thrush song characteristics that differed significantly between studied habitats
| Model | AICC | ΔAICC |
| ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistle minimum frequency | ||||
| HABITAT | 740.66 | 0.00 | 0.39 | |
| HABITAT + MALES | 742.05 | 1.40 | 0.19 | 2.01 |
| HABITAT + HOUR | 742.10 | 1.44 | 0.19 | 2.05 |
| Whistle peak frequency | ||||
| HABITAT | 776.56 | 0.00 | 0.34 | |
| HABITAT + HOUR | 777.53 | 0.97 | 0.21 | 1.62 |
| HABITAT + DAY | 777.79 | 1.23 | 0.18 | 1.85 |
| HABITAT + DAY + HOUR | 778.32 | 1.76 | 0.14 | 2.41 |
| HABITAT + NOISE | 778.40 | 1.84 | 0.13 | 2.51 |
| Syllable repertoire | ||||
| NOISE + DAY | 684.54 | 0.00 | 0.32 | |
| NOISE | 685.04 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 1.28 |
| NOISE + DAY + HOUR | 685.72 | 1.18 | 0.18 | 1.80 |
| NOISE + DAY + MALES | 686.24 | 1.70 | 0.14 | 2.34 |
| NOISE + MALES | 686.43 | 1.89 | 0.12 | 2.58 |
| Whistle repertoire | ||||
| NOISE | 567.04 | 0.00 | 0.30 | |
| NOISE + MALES | 567.17 | 0.13 | 0.29 | 1.07 |
| NOISE + HOUR | 568.48 | 1.43 | 0.15 | 2.05 |
| NOISE + DAY + HOUR | 568.74 | 1.69 | 0.13 | 2.33 |
| NOISE + DAY | 568.76 | 1.72 | 0.13 | 2.36 |
| Twitter repertoire | ||||
| NOISE + DAY | 664.54 | 0.00 | 0.41 | |
| NOISE + DAY + HOUR | 666.03 | 1.49 | 0.19 | 2.11 |
| Twitter fraction | ||||
| NOISE + DAY | 736.76 | 0.00 | 0.27 | |
| NOISE | 737.13 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 1.20 |
| HABITAT + DAY | 737.42 | 0.66 | 0.19 | 1.39 |
| DAY | 737.58 | 0.83 | 0.18 | 1.51 |
| HABITAT | 738.10 | 1.34 | 0.14 | 1.96 |
| Linearity index | ||||
| NOISE | − 85.43 | 0.00 | 0.36 | |
| NOISE + DAY | − 84.26 | 1.17 | 0.20 | 1.80 |
| NOISE + HOUR | − 83.78 | 1.65 | 0.16 | 2.28 |
| NOISE + MALES | − 83.73 | 1.70 | 0.15 | 2.34 |
Models with the highest probability (ΔAICC < 2) are shown. The Akaike weight (w) and evidence ratio (ER) were calculated on the basis of Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected for small sample size (see “Methods” for details). Predictor codes: DAY, day of season; HOUR, hour after sunrise; NOISE, background noise level; HABITAT, habitat type; MALES, other singing males in hearing range during recording
Fig. 2Differences in background noise level (dB SPL) within and between studied habitat types. Each diamond represents a single recorded male. Box plot shows means and 95% CI
Fig. 3Differences in minimum and peak frequency of whistle (a) and twitter (b) syllables between studied habitats (means and 95% CI; *Student's t-test p-value < 0.05)
Fig. 4Differences in syllable, whistle and twitter repertoire within 1000 subsequent syllables of continuous song between studied habitats (means and 95% CI; *Student's t-test p-value < 0.05)
Fig. 5Differences in whistle and twitter fractions within 1000 subsequent syllables of continuous song between studied habitats (means and 95% CI; *Student's t-test p-value < 0.05)
Fig. 6Differences in linearity index between studied habitats (means and 95% CI; *Student's t-test p-value < 0.05)