Carolina chickadee (Aves, Paridae, Poecile carolinensis) vocalization rates: Effects of body mass and food availability under aviary conditions

Citation
Jr. Lucas et al., Carolina chickadee (Aves, Paridae, Poecile carolinensis) vocalization rates: Effects of body mass and food availability under aviary conditions, ETHOLOGY, 105(6), 1999, pp. 503-520
Citations number
54
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Animal Sciences","Neurosciences & Behavoir
Journal title
ETHOLOGY
ISSN journal
0179-1613 → ACNP
Volume
105
Issue
6
Year of publication
1999
Pages
503 - 520
Database
ISI
SICI code
0179-1613(199906)105:6<503:CC(PPC>2.0.ZU;2-9
Abstract
We evaluated the effect of body mass and several environmental factors on v ocalization rates of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) housed in a n aviary. Two different nonsong vocalizations (tseet and chick-a-dee) and s ong (fee-bee fee-bay) were recorded. Food was delivered from a feeder;and t hree different levels of food access were presented to each bird: 10, 40 an d 55 min/d. Two scales of body mass were measured: 'dawn mass' and 'focal m ass' (mass during a focal observation divided by dawn mass). Across all bir ds, there was a significant negative correlation between both nonsong vocal ization rates and body mass (both dawn and focal mass) and the effect of ma ss on call rate was greatest for days when food was relatively abundant. No nsong vocalizations were also given at higher rates when food was limited ( 10 min/d) than when food was more abundant (40 and 55 min/d). No changes in call rates with time of day were observed. Overall, song rates were substa ntially lower than nonsong rates. Unlike nonsong rates, song rates were hig hest in birds that had relatively high dawn mass. No significant correlatio n between song rates and focal mass was observed, and no significant correl ation between song rates and time of day was observed. Finally, vocalizatio ns from nonfocal birds had little effect on vocalization rates of focal bir ds. Our results suggest that nonsong communicative signals are more importa nt for birds facing energetic stress, while song is more important for bird s that are not energetically stressed.