Variation in chick-a-dee call sequences, not in the fine structure of chick-a-dee calls, influences mobbing behaviour in mixed-species flocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When animals vocalize under the threat of predation, variation in the structure of calls can play a vital role in survival. The chick-a-dee calls of chickadees and titmice provide a model system for studying communication in such contexts. In previous studies, birds’ responses to chick-a-dee calls covaried with call structure, but also with unmeasured and correlated parameters of the calling sequence, including duty cycle (the proportion of the calling sequence when a signal was present). In this study, we exposed flocks of Black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) and heterospecific birds to playback of chick-a-dee calls and taxidermic models of predators. We quantified birds’ responses to variation in number of D notes and duty cycle of the signalling sequence. Chickadees and heterospecific birds responded more intensely to high-duty-cycle treatments, and equally to treatments where duty cycle was held constant and the number of D notes varied. Although our study does not disentangle the effects of call rate and duty cycle, it is the first to investigate independently the behavioural responses of birds to variation in structural and sequence-level parameters of the chick-a-dee call during a predator confrontation. Critically, our results confirm that the pattern previously observed in a feeding context holds true in a mobbing context: variation in calling sequences, not in call structure, is the salient acoustic feature of chick-a-dee calls. These results call into question the idea that chick-a-dee call structure carries allometric information about predator size, suggesting instead that sequence-level parameters play a central role in communication in a mobbing context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".