| Literature DB >> 31867122 |
Vlad Demartsev1,2, Naomi Gordon2, Adi Barocas3,4, Einat Bar-Ziv5, Tchia Ilany6, Yael Goll2, Amiyaal Ilany7, Eli Geffen2.
Abstract
The efficiency of informational transfer is one of the key aspects of any communication system. The informational coding economy of human languages is often demonstrated by their almost universal fit to Zipf's "Law of Brevity," expressing negative relationship between word length and its usage frequency. Animal vocal systems, however, provided mixed results in their adherence to this relationship, potentially due to conflicting evolutionary pressures related to differences in signaling range and communicational needs. To examine this potential parallel between human and animal vocal communication, and also to explore how divergent, sex-specific, communicational settings affect signaling efficiency within a species, we examined the complete vocal repertoire of rock hyraxes (Procavia capensis). As male and female hyraxes differ in their sociality levels and male hyraxes vocal repertoire is dominated by sexual advertisement songs, we hypothesized that sex-specific vocal repertoires could be subjected to different signaling optimization pressures. Our results show that the sexes differ in repertoire size, call usage, and adherence to coding efficiency principles. Interestingly, the classic call length/call usage relationship is not consistently found in rock hyraxes. Rather, a negative relationship between call amplitude and call usage is found, suggesting that the efficiency of the vocal repertoire is driven by call amplitude rather than duration. We hypothesize that, in contrast to human speech that is mainly intended for short distance, the need for frequent long-range signaling shapes an animal's vocal repertoire efficiency according to the cost of call amplitude rather than call length. However, call duration may be a secondary factor affecting signaling efficiency, in cases where amplitude is under specific selection pressures, such as sexual selection.Entities:
Keywords: Animal communication; Law of Brevity; vocal coding efficiency; vocal repertoire
Year: 2019 PMID: 31867122 PMCID: PMC6906988 DOI: 10.1002/evl3.147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Lett ISSN: 2056-3744
Figure 1(A) Sample spectrograms of typical exemplar for each of the identified call types in rock hyrax vocal repertoire. (Twitter, Growl, Squeek Bark, Wail‐Bark, Grunt, Wail, Snort, Whine, and Coo—according to Fourie 1977; Howl, Click, Chuck, and Trill—newly defined in this study.) (B) Relative call usage frequency of a single adult female hyrax over 24 h. Color codes denote respective call type. Point size represents the cumulative duration of the respective call type. Points are jittered because of overlaps.
The model effect of each of the two regressors (mean call duration and mean call amplitude) on call occurrence frequency in hyrax
| Model term | Estimate (SE) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Sex | −0.951 (0.443) | 4.6 |
|
| Element duration | −0.105 (0.021) | 5.6 |
|
| Element amplitude | −0.062 (0.015) | 54.1 |
|
| Sex × Element duration | 1.772 (0.660) | 7.2 |
|
| Sex × Element amplitude | −0.015 (0.019) | 0.6 | 0.438 |
|
| |||
| Sex | 0.703 (0.457) | 2.4 | 0.124 |
| Element duration | −0.776 (0.256) | 1.6 | 0.208 |
| Element amplitude | 0.005 (0.014) | 15.2 |
|
| Sex × Element duration | 2.444 (0.707) | 11.9 |
|
| Sex × Element amplitude | −0.082 (0.018) | 19.7 |
|
|
| |||
| Sex | −1.349 (0.458) | 8.7 |
|
| Element duration | −0.235 (0.223) | 21.9 |
|
| Element amplitude | −0.053 (0.015) | 48.5 |
|
| Sex × Element duration | 4.396 (0.840) | 27.4 |
|
| Sex × Element amplitude | −0.028 (0.019) | 2.2 | 0.141 |
The Wald χ 2 test evaluated the significance of the effects. df = 1 in all cases. Each column shows the model estimate (slope) for the respective covariate with call occurrence frequency. Models were fitted using the gamma distribution and a log link function. Significant P‐values are in bold. n is the sample size. The sex reference is female.
Figure 2Mean frequency (±SD) of the various call types in male and female rock hyraxes. The behavioral contexts of each call type are denoted by color (red—song elements; purple—affiliative behavior and appeasement; blue—fear, arousal, and alertness; green—agonistic and threat behavior; black—unknown function).
Figure 3Sex‐specific call‐type usage as a function of (A) call duration (s) and (B) call amplitude (dBFS) in rock hyraxes. (Dots denote mean values with SD error bars.) In several cases SD bar range is too small to be displayed. Call usage is estimated as “Occurrence frequency”—proportion of specific call count out of total number of emitted calls.
The model effect of mean call production effort (CPE) on call occurrence frequency in hyrax
| Model term | Estimate (SE) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Sex | −0.440 (0.130) | 11.4 |
|
| CPE | −4.810 (0.655) | 3.1 | 0.078 |
| Sex × CPE | −37.732 (26.877) | 2.0 | 0.160 |
|
| |||
| Sex | −0.175 (0.146) | 1.4 | 0.231 |
| CPE | −1.605 (0.458) | 7.7 |
|
| Sex × CPE | −0.204 (1.231) | 0.0 | 0.868 |
|
| |||
| Sex | −0.748 (0.198) | 14.2 |
|
| CPE | −1.139 (0.486) | 0.3 | 0.604 |
| Sex × CPE | 1.416 (1.660) | 0.7 | 0.394 |
The Wald χ 2 test evaluated the significance of the effects. df = 1 in all cases. Each column shows the model estimate (slope) for the respective covariate with call occurrence frequency. Models were fitted using the gamma distribution and a log link function. Significant P‐values are in bold. n = sample size. The sex reference is female.
A qualitative summary of rock hyrax sex‐specific repertoire adherence to call duration, amplitude, and call production effort (CPE) based Zipfian efficiency
|
|
The table summarizes the trends in males and females detected by the GEE model. “−”denotes significant negative relationship between call usage and the tested measure (e.g., shorter calls are more frequently used); “+” denotes significant positive relationship between call usage and the tested measure (e.g., louder calls are more frequently used); “ns” denote no significant relationship. Male whole repertoire was analyzed twice: “song”: each song treated as one vocal unit; and “units”: with songs treated in terms of their separate parts.