Effects of Valley Topography on Acoustic Communication in Birds: Why Do Birds Avoid Deep Valleys in Daqinggou Nature Reserve?

Simple Summary

Landscape structure may influence animal acoustic communication. Our playback experiments showed that the acoustic intensity and frequency of bird vocalizations differed between the upper and lower valley. Valley topography on acoustic communication could lead birds to avoid deep valleys.

Abstract

To investigate the effects of valley topography on the acoustic transmission of avian vocalisations, we carried out playback experiments in Daqinggou valley, Inner Mongolia, China. During the experiments, we recorded the vocalisations of five avian species, the large-billed crow (Corvus macrorhynchos Wagler, 1827), common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus Linnaeus, 1758), Eurasian magpie (Pica pica Linnaeus, 1758), Eurasian tree sparrow (Passer montanus Linnaeus, 1758), and meadow bunting (Emberiza cioides Brand, 1843), at transmission distances of 30 m and 50 m in the upper and lower parts of the valley and analysed the intensity, the fundamental frequency (F0), and the first three formant frequencies (F1/F2/F3) of the sounds. We also investigated bird species diversity in the upper and lower valley. We found that: (1) at the distance of 30 m, there were significant differences in F0/F1/F2/F3 in Eurasian magpies, significant differences in F1/F2/F3 in the meadow bunting and Eurasian tree sparrow, and partially significant differences in sound frequency between the upper and lower valley in the other two species; (2) at the distance of 50 m, there were significant differences in F0/F1/F2/F3 in two avian species (large-billed crow and common cuckoo) between the upper and lower valley and partially significant differences in sound frequency between the upper and lower valley in the other three species; (2) there were significant differences in the acoustic intensities of crow, cuckoo, magpie, and bunting calls between the upper and lower valley. (3) Species number and richness were significantly higher in the upper valley than in the lower valley. We suggested that the structure of valley habitats may lead to the breakdown of acoustic signals and communication in birds to varying degrees. The effect of valley topography on acoustic communication could be one reason for animal species avoiding deep valleys.

Rutting vocal display in male impala (Aepyceros melampus) and overlap with alarm context

BACKGROUND

The rutting vocal display of male impala Aepyceros melampus is unique for its complexity among ruminants. This study investigates bouts of rutting calls produced towards potential mates and rival males by free-ranging male impala in Namibia. In particular, a comparison of male rutting and alarm snorts is conducted, inspired by earlier findings of mate guarding by using alarm snorts in male topi Damaliscus lunatus.

RESULTS

Rutting male impala produced 4-38 (13.5 ± 6.5) rutting calls per bout. We analyzed 201 bouts, containing in total 2709 rutting calls of five types: continuous roars produced within a single exhalation-inhalation cycle; interrupted roars including few exhalation-inhalation cycles; pant-roars distinctive by a pant-phase with rapidly alternating inhalations and exhalations; usual snorts lacking any roar part; and roar-snorts starting with a short roar part. Bouts mostly started and ended with usual snorts. Continuous roars were the shortest roars. The average duration of the exhalatory phase was longest in the continuous roars and shortest in the pant-roars. The average fundamental frequency (49.7-51.4 Hz) did not differ between roar types. Vocal tract length, calculated by using measurements of the first four vocal tract resonances (formants), ranged within 381-382 mm in all roar types. In the studied male impala, rutting snorts within bouts of rutting calls were longer and had higher values of the upper quartile in the call spectra than alarm snorts produced towards potential danger.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional inhalations during the emission of the interrupted and pant-roars prolong their duration compared to the continuous roars but do not affect the fundamental frequency or the degree of larynx retraction while roaring. Alarm snorts are separated from one another by large intervals, whereas the intervals between rutting snorts within bouts are short. Sometimes, rutting snorts alternate with roars, whereas alarm snorts do not. Therefore, it is not the acoustic structure of individual snorts but the temporal sequence and the occasional association with another call type that defines snorts as either rutting or alarm snorts. The rutting snorts of male impala may function to attract the attention of receptive females and delay their departure from a male's harem or territory.