| Literature DB >> 32907574 |
Ramona Rauber1,2, Bart Kranstauber3,4,5, Marta B Manser3,4,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to recombine smaller units to produce infinite structures of higher-order phrases is unique to human language, yet evidence of animals to combine multiple acoustic units into meaningful combinations increases constantly. Despite increasing evidence for meaningful call combinations across contexts, little attention has been paid to the potential role of temporal variation of call type composition in longer vocal sequences in conveying information about subtle changes in the environment or individual differences. Here, we investigated the composition and information content of sentinel call sequences in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). While being on sentinel guard, a coordinated vigilance behaviour, meerkats produce long sequences composed of six distinct sentinel call types and alarm calls. We analysed recordings of sentinels to test if the order of the call types is graded and whether they contain additional group-, individual-, age- or sex-specific vocal signatures.Entities:
Keywords: Animal vocal sequences; Call gradation; Combinatoriality; Individually distinct call patterns; Sentinel behaviour
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32907574 PMCID: PMC7488032 DOI: 10.1186/s12915-020-00847-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biol ISSN: 1741-7007 Impact factor: 7.431
Fig. 1Spectrograms of the six sentinel call types a single-note call (sn), b double-note call (dn), c triple-note call (tn), d multiple-note call (mn), e di-drrr call and f wheek call and two examples of alarm calls: g medium-urgency terrestrial alarm and h high-urgency terrestrial alarm. Sentinel short-note calls: a–d, sentinel calming calls: a and b and sentinel warning calls: e and f
Fig. 2a Observed transition probabilities between all the six sentinel call types and alarm calls. b Expected transition probabilities for all six sentinel call types and alarm calls based on the frequency of each call type (i.e. if calls were given in a random order)
Comparison between the number of transitions expected for each diagonal (95% CI) from the randomised sequences when all call transitions were randomised (null model) and the observed sequences
| Diagonal | 95%CI no. transitions (null) | Observed no. transitions | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| −6 (6 levels up) | 129–160.5 | 75 | Under |
| −5 (5 levels up) | 233–280.1 | 128 | Under |
| −4 (4 levels up) | 487.4–542 | 441 | Under |
| −3 (3 levels up) | 482.5–540 | 386 | Under |
| −2 (2 levels up) | 895.9–995.7 | 789 | Under |
| −1 (1 level up) | 5120.9–5296.2 | 4849 | Under |
| 0 (repetition) | 11,873.5–12,103 | 13,049 | Over |
| 1 (1 level down) | 5105.9–5296.7 | 4834 | Under |
| 2 (2 levels down) | 905–992.7 | 739 | Under |
| 3 (3 levels down) | 493.4–550.6 | 403 | Under |
| 4 (4 levels down) | 486.5–540.1 | 446 | Under |
| 5 (5 levels down) | 239.5–281.6 | 156 | Under |
| 6 (6 levels down) | 130–159 | 81 | Under |
Comparison between the number of transitions expected for each diagonal (95% CI) from the randomised sequences when replications (zero diagonal) were kept constant (in order to focus on transitions between calls; null model) and the observed sequences
| Diagonal | 95%CI no. transitions (null) | Observed no. transitions | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| −6 (6 levels up) | 70–94 | 75 | As expected |
| −5 (5 levels up) | 159–194 | 128 | Under |
| −4 (4 levels up) | 424–477 | 441 | As expected |
| −3 (3 levels up) | 424.9–490 | 386 | Under |
| −2 (2 levels up) | 791.9–873.0 | 789 | Under |
| −1 (1 level up) | 4612.9–4730.1 | 4849 | Over |
| 0 (repetition) | 13,049–13,049 | 13,049 | Kept constant |
| 1 (1 level down) | 4609.9–4730 | 4834 | Over |
| 2 (2 levels down) | 784.9–870 | 739 | Under |
| 3 (3 levels down) | 422–484 | 403 | Under |
| 4 (4 levels down) | 420.9–473 | 446 | As expected |
| 5 (5 levels down) | 154–193 | 156 | As expected |
| 6 (6 levels down) | 69–92 | 81 | As expected |
Fig. 3Sequence similarity (Levenshtein Similarity Index LSI) of sentinel sequences recorded from a adult individuals from the same or different groups, b adult individuals from the same or different natal groups and c within and between adult individuals
Fig. 4Within-individual sequence similarity (Levenshtein Similarity Index LSI) of sentinel sequences recorded from female (blue) and male (black) adults and subadults