Advertisement

The social functions of complex vocal sequences in wild geladas

  • Morgan L. GustisonEmail author
  • Elizabeth Tinsley Johnson
  • Jacinta C. Beehner
  • Thore J. Bergman
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Social complexity: patterns, processes, and evolution

Abstract

Several studies show that highly social taxa produce relatively more complex vocalizations. Yet, very few of these cases have demonstrated the function that vocal complexity plays within a highly social setting. Here, we assess potential functions of vocal complexity in male geladas (Theropithecus gelada) living in the Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Geladas are known for both their diverse vocalizations (routinely produced in long sequences) and their complex social structure (extremely large groups and long-term male-female bonds). We tested whether sequence complexity (i.e., including elaborate “derived” calls that are unique to geladas and absent in closely related taxa) or size (i.e., number of calls) may function (1) to counteract the challenges of living in a large group (overcoming conspecific noise and crowding, maintaining cohesion), or (2) to maintain social bonds with females. We found that an increase in conspecific noise contributed to the use of longer and more complex sequences. However, behavioral contexts in which the risk of separation was highest (i.e., traveling) were associated with only longer (but not more complex) sequences. We also found that sequence complexity (but not size) was associated with male-female bonding as complex call sequences were produced primarily when males were in close proximity to and approached females, and they led to males being groomed by females. Together, these findings suggest that, while a noisy backdrop of conspecific vocalizations might contribute to vocal complexity, the potential driver of gelada vocal complexity is the need to maintain cross-sex bonds.

Significance statement

Why do some animals make many diverse sounds while others make only a few simple sounds? Broad comparisons suggest that sociality may be important as more social species (e.g., those with large group size and social bonding) tend to make more types of sounds. Yet, it remains unclear why gregarious species need an expanded call repertoire. Here, we take advantage of previous work on a highly social primate (geladas) that identified several complex vocalizations that contribute to gelada’s expanded vocal repertoire. To better understand why geladas evolved an expanded set of calls, we focus on the context where complex calls are produced and the responses those calls elicit. We found that the potential driver of the use of more call types is the need to maintain cross-sex bonds, suggesting an important role for male-female bonds in the evolution of vocal complexity.

Keywords

Social complexity Vocal complexity Conspecific noise Communication Social bonding Primate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) as well as the wardens and staff of the Simien Mountain National Park for permission and support in conduction research on geladas. We thank all the members of the University of Michigan Gelada Research Project (UMGRP) for assistance in data collection and valuable insight on analyses and interpretation. This manuscript was improved by helpful comments from Susanne Shultz and two anonymous reviewers.

Funding

MLG was supported by grants from the National Geographic Society (9122-12, W304-14), the Leakey Foundation, University of Michigan, and Petridish (primary supporter, John Allen). ETJ was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF-1340911) and the Leakey Foundation. UMGRP was supported by the Wildlife Conservation Society (SSF 67250), the National Geographic Society (8100-06), the Leakey Foundation, the National Science Foundation (BCS-0715179, BCS-0962118, IOS-1255974), and the University of Michigan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Research was approved by the University Committee on Use and Care of Animals at the University of Michigan and adhered to the laws and guidelines of Ethiopia.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2612_MOESM1_ESM.wav (220 kb)
ESM 1 (WAV 219 kb)
265_2018_2612_MOESM2_ESM.wav (385 kb)
ESM 2 (WAV 384 kb)
265_2018_2612_MOESM3_ESM.wav (257 kb)
ESM 3 (WAV 257 kb)
265_2018_2612_MOESM4_ESM.wav (203 kb)
ESM 4 (WAV 202 kb)
265_2018_2612_MOESM5_ESM.wav (276 kb)
ESM 5 (WAV 275 kb)

References

  1. Aich H, Moos-Heilen R, Zimmermann E (1990) Vocalizations of adult gelada baboons (Theropithecus gelada): acoustic structure and behavioural context. Folia Primatol 55:109–132.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000156508
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534
  3. Altmann G (1980) Prolegomena to Menzerath’s law. Glottometrika 2:1–10Google Scholar
  4. Aubin T, Jouventin P (1998) Cocktail-party effect in king penguin colonies. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1665–1673.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baixeries J, Elvevag B, Ferrer-i-Cancho R (2013) The evolution of the exponent of Zipf’s law in language ontogeny. PLoS One 8:e53227.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053227 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker CM (1988) Vocalizations of captive water mongooses, Atilax paludinosus. Z Saugetierkd 53:83–91Google Scholar
  7. Baker MC, Bjerke TK, Lampe HU, Espmark YO (1987) Sexual response of female yellowhammers to differences in regional song dialects and repertoire sizes. Anim Behav 35:395–401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80263-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bee MA (2007) Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus. Anim Behav 74:549–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bee MA, Micheyl C (2008) The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol 122:235–251.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.122.3.235 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Behr O, von Helversen O (2004) Bat serenades—complex courtship songs of the sac-winged bat (Saccopteryx bilineata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:106–115.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-004-0768-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bender R, Lange S (2001) Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 54:343–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00314-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergman TJ (2010) Experimental evidence for limited vocal recognition in a wild primate: implications for the social complexity hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:3045–3053.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bergman TJ (2013) Speech-like vocalized lip-smacking in geladas. Curr Biol 23:R268–R269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernal XE, Page RA, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2007) Natural history miscellany—cues for eavesdroppers: do frog calls indicate prey density and quality? Am Nat 169:409–415.  https://doi.org/10.1086/510729 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Blumstein DT, Armitage KB (1997) Does sociality drive the evolution of communicative complexity? A comparative test with ground-dwelling sciurid alarm calls. Am Nat 150:179–200.  https://doi.org/10.1086/286062
  17. Bouchet H, Blois-Heulin C, Lemasson A (2013) Social complexity parallels vocal complexity: a comparison of three non-human primate species. Front Psychol 4:390.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00390 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Bretz F, Westfall P, Hothorn T (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bronkhorst AW (2000) The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acust United AC 86:117–128Google Scholar
  20. Brumm H, Voss K, Köllmer I, Todt D (2004) Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey. J Exp Biol 207:443–448.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00768
  21. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Stud Behav 35:151–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(05)35004-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brumm H, Zollinger SA (2011) The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour 148:1173–1198.  https://doi.org/10.1163/000579511x605759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (1997) Female choice in the sedge warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: multiple cues from song and territory quality. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:521–526.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Byers ES (2005) Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: a longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. J Sex Res 42:113–118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552264 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Byers BE, Kroodsma DE (2009) Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires. Anim Behav 77:13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Catchpole CK (1987) Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 2:94–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(87)90165-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (2003) Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Chabout J, Sarkar A, Dunson DB, Jarvis ED (2015) Male mice song syntax depends on social contexts and influences female preferences. Front Behav Neurosci 9:76.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00076 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Charlton BD, Reby D, McComb KE (2007) Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biol Lett 3:382–385.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0244 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1997) Reconciliatory grunts by dominant female baboons influence victims’ behaviour. Anim Behav 54:409–418.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0438
  31. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Silk JB (1995) The role of grunts in reconciling opponents and facilitating interactions among adult female baboons. Anim Behav 50:249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1995.0237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Collins SA (1999) Is female preference for male repertoires due to sensory bias? Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2309–2314.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cowlishaw G (1992) Song function in gibbons. Behaviour 121:131–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cowlishaw G (1996) Sexual selection and information content in gibbon song bouts. Ethology 102:272–284.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1996.tb01125.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Curley JP, Keverne EB (2005) Genes, brains and mammalian social bonds. Trends Ecol Evol 20:561–567.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Drăgănoiu TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M (2002) Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2525–2531.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dunbar RIM (1998) Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Dunbar RIM (2003) The social brain: mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:163–181.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dunbar RIM, Dunbar P (1975) Social dynamics of gelada baboons. Kager, BaselGoogle Scholar
  40. Dunbar RIM, Shultz S (2010) Bondedness and sociality. Behaviour 147:775–803.  https://doi.org/10.1163/000579510X501151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Emmers-Sommer TM (2004) The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. J Soc Pers Relat 21:399–411.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504042839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ey E, Rahn C, Hammerschmidt K, Fischer J (2009) Wild female olive baboons adapt their grunt vocalizations to environmental conditions. Ethology 115:493–503.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01638.x
  43. Fedurek P, Zuberbühler K, Semple S (2017) Trade-offs in the production of animal vocal sequences: insights from the structure of wild chimpanzee pant hoots. Front Zool 14:50.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-017-0235-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Freeberg TM (2006) Social complexity can drive vocal complexity: group size influences vocal information in Carolina chickadees. Psychol Sci 17:557–561.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01743.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gall GEC, Manser MB (2017) Group cohesion in foraging meerkats: follow the moving ‘vocal hot spot. R Soc Open Sci 4:170004.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Geissmann T, Orgeldinger M (2000) The relationship between duet songs and pair bonds in siamangs, Hylobates syndactylus. Anim Behav 60:805–809.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1540 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gil D, Graves JA, Slater PJB (1999) Seasonal patterns of singing in the willow warbler: evidence against the fertility announcement hypothesis. Anim Behav 58:995–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1211
  48. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80103-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gustison ML, Bergman TJ (2016) Vocal complexity influences female responses to gelada male calls. Sci Rep 6:19680.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19680 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Gustison ML, Bergman TJ (2017) Divergent acoustic properties of gelada and baboon vocalizations and their implications for the evolution of human speech. J Lang Evol 2:20–36.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzx015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gustison ML, Townsend SW (2015) A survey of the context and structure of high- and low-amplitude calls in mammals. Anim Behav 105:281–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gustison ML, le Roux A, Bergman TJ (2012) Derived vocalizations of geladas (Theropithecus gelada) and the evolution of vocal complexity in primates. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:1847–1859.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0218 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Gustison ML, Semple S, Ferrer-i-Cancho R, Bergman TJ (2016) Gelada vocal sequences follow Menzerath’s linguistic law. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:E2750–E2758.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522072113 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Hotchkin C, Parks S (2013) The Lombard effect and other noise-induced vocal modifications: insight from mammalian communication systems. Biol Rev 88:809–824.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kawai M, Ohsawa H, Mori U, Dunbar RIM (1983) Social organization of gelada baboons: social units and definitions. Primates 24:13–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kershenbaum A, Ilany A, Blaustein L, Geffen E (2012) Syntactic structure and geographical dialects in the songs of male rock hyraxes. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2974–2981.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kime NM, Rand AS, Kapfer M, Ryan MJ (1998) Consistency of female choice in the túngara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters. Anim Behav 55:641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kleiman DG (1977) Monogamy in mammals. Q Rev Biol 52:39–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Krams I, Krama T, Freeberg TM, Kullberg C, Lucas JR (2012) Linking social complexity and vocal complexity: a parid perspective. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:1879–1891.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0222 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Chapman and Hall, Methuen, MAGoogle Scholar
  62. Leighton GM (2017) Cooperative breeding influences the number and type of vocalizations in avian lineages. Proc R Soc B 284:20171508.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1508
  63. Manser MB, Jansen DAWAM, Graw B, Hollén LI, Bousquet CAH, Furrer RD, Le Roux A (2014) Vocal complexity in meerkats and other mongoose species. Adv Stud Behav 46:281–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800286-5.00006-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marshall RC, Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (2007) Song and female choice for extrapair copulations in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. Anim Behav 73:629–635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McComb KE (1991) Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav 41:79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80504-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McComb KE, Semple S (2005) Coevolution of vocal communication and sociality in primates. Biol Lett 1:381–385.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0366 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Menzerath P (1954) Die Architektonik des deutschen Wortschatzes. Dümmler, BonnGoogle Scholar
  68. Milička J (2016) Menzerath’s law: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. J Quant Linguist 21:85–99.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2014.882187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mitani JC (1988) Male gibbon (Hylobates agilis) singing behavior: natural history, song variations and function. Ethology 79:177–194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1988.tb00710.x
  70. Mountjoy DJ, Lemon RE (1996) Female choice for complex song in the European starling: a field experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:65–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nowicki S, Searcy WA (2004) Song function and the evolution of female preferences: why birds sing, why brains matter. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1016:704–723.  https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1298.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Palombit RA, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1999) Male grunts as mediators of social interaction with females in wild chacma baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus). Behaviour 136:221–242.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853999501298
  73. Pappano DJ (2013) The reproductive trajectories of bachelor geladas. PhD Dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  74. R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  75. Rehsteiner U, Geisser H, Reyer H-U (1998) Singing and mating success in water pipits: one specific song element makes all the difference. Anim Behav 55:1471–1481.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0733 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Reichard DG, Welklin JF (2014) On the existence and potential functions of low-amplitude vocalizations in North American birds. Auk 132:156–166.  https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-14-151.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reid JM, Arcese P, Cassidy ALEV, Hiebert SM, Smith JNM, Stoddard PK, Mar AB, Keller LF (2004) Song repertoire size predicts initial mating success in male song sparrows, Melospiza melodia. Anim Behav 68:1055–1063.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Richardson C, Lengagne T (2010) Multiple signals and male spacing affect female preference at cocktail parties in treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1247–1252.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Richman B (1976) Some vocal distinctive features used by gelada monkeys. J Acoust Soc Am 60:718–724.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381144
  80. Richman B (1987) Rhythm and melody in gelada vocal exchanges. Primates 28:199–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02382570
  81. Roy S, Miller CT, Gottsch D, Wang X (2011) Vocal control by the common marmoset in the presence of interfering noise. J Exp Biol 214:3619–3629.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.056101 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Schmidt AKD, Römer H (2011) Solutions to the cocktail party problem in insects: selective filters, spatial release from masking and gain control in tropical crickets. PLoS One 6:e28593.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028593 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Searcy WA, Andersson M (1986) Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:507–533.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.002451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Semple S, Hsu MJ, Agoramoorthy G (2010) Efficiency of coding in macaque vocal communication. Biol Lett 6:469–471.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.1062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Silk JB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1996) The form and function of post-conflict interactions between female baboons. Anim Behav 52:259–268.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Snyder-Mackler N, Alberts SC, Bergman TJ (2012a) Concessions of an alpha male? Cooperative defence and shared reproduction in multi-male primate groups. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:3788–3795.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Snyder-Mackler N, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ (2012b) Defining higher levels in the multilevel societies of geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Int J Primatol 33:1054–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-012-9584-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tinsley Johnson E, Snyder-Mackler N, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ (2014) Kinship and dominance rank influence the strength of social bonds in female geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Int J Primatol 35:288–304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-013-9733-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tomaszycki ML, Adkins-Regan E (2006) Is male song quality important in maintaining pair bonds? Behaviour 143:549–567.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853906776759529
  90. Torre IG, Luque B, Lacasa L, Luque J, Hernández-Fernández A (2017) Emergence of linguistic laws in human voice. Sci Rep 7:43862.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43862 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Tyack PL (2008) Convergence of calls as animals form social bonds, active compensation for noisy communication channels, and the evolution of vocal learning in mammals. J Comp Psychol 122:319–331.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013087 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Vallet E, Kreutzer M (1995) Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav 49:1603–1610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)90082-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wilkinson GS (2003) Social and vocal complexity in bats. In: de Waal FBM, Tyack PL (eds) Animal social complexity: intelligence, culture, and individualized societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 322–341Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Princeton Neuroscience InstitutePrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Human Biology Program and Department of Integrative BiologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  6. 6.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations