The squeaking vocalization of grey wolves (Canis lupus): individuality in a close-range affiliative mammalian vocalisation
äºBehaviourSearch for other papers by Jackie N. Weir in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Jennifer N. Schneider in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Rita E. Anderson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Wolves (Canis lupus) frequently use the close-range squeaking vocalization, a soft, multi-unit, high-pitched tonal vocalisation. We examined the social and movement contexts of the occurrence and acoustic characteristics of squeaking from videotapes of pack-reared, pack-living captive wolves living in semi-natural conditions at the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research over a three-year period. We only examined squeaking vocalisations for which the sender and potential receiver(s) could be determined. Wolves squeaked in many contexts, especially when approaching other wolves in prosocial and food contexts. Some wolves squeaked more than others. Acoustically, squeaking vocalisations were individually identifiable, primarily through frequency characteristics. Contextual use suggests that squeaking conveys the friendly motivation of an approaching wolf and in aggressive situations, a motivation to defuse or decrease aggression. This close-range vocalisation may play an important role in controlling and coordinating social interactions within the pack.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Baan, C., Bergmüller, R., Smith, D.W. & Molnar, B. (2014). Conflict management in free-ranging wolves, Canis lupus. â Anim. Behav. 90: 327-334.
-
Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, 2011. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. R package version 0.999375-42. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
-
Bekoff, M. (1995). Play signals as punctuation: the structure of social play in canids. â Behaviour 132: 419-429.
-
Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. â Mach. learn. 45: 5-32.
-
Bugnyar, T., Kijne, M. & Kotrschal, K. (2001). Food calling in ravens: are yells referential signals? â Anim. Behav. 61: 949-958.
-
Cafazzo, S., Marshall-Pescini, S., Lazzaroni, M., Virányi, Z. & Range, F. (2018). The effect of domestication on post-conflict management: wolves reconcile while dogs avoid one another. â Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 5: 171553.
-
Cheney, D.L. & Seyfarth, R.M. (2018). Flexible use and social function in primate vocalizations. â Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115: 1774-1779.
-
Cohen, J.A. & Fox, M.W. (1976). Vocalizations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication. â Behav. Process. 1: 77-92.
-
Cordoni, G. & Palagi, E. (2015). Being a victim or an aggressor: different functions of triadic post-conflict interactions in wolves (Canis lupus lupus). â Aggr. Behav. 41: 526-536.
-
Cordoni, G. & Palagi, E. (2019). Back to the future: a glance over wolf social behavior to understand dog-human relationship. â Animals 9: 991. DOI:10.3390/ani9110991.
-
Coscia, E.M., Phillips, D.P. & Fentress, J. (1991). Spectral analysis of neonatal wolf Canis lupus vocalizations. â Bioacoustics 3: 275-293.
-
Crisler, L. (1958). Arctic wild. â Harper and Row Publishers, New York, NY.
-
Darden, S., Dabelsteen, T. & Pedersen, S.B. (2003). A potential tool for Swift fox (Vulpes velox) conservation: individuality of long-range barking sequences. â J. Mamm. 84: 1417-1427.
-
Durbin, L.S. (1998). Individuality in the whistle call of the Asiatic wild dog Cuon alpinus. â Bioacoustics 9: 197-206.
-
Faragó, T., Townsend, S. & Range, F. (2014). The information content of wolf (and dog) social communication. â In: Biocommunication of animals (Witzany, G., ed.). Springer, Dordrecht, p. 41-62.
-
Fentress, J.C. (1967). Observations on the behavioral development of a hand-reared male timber wolf. â Am. Zool. 7: 339-351.
-
Fentress, J.C., Field, R. & Parr, H. (1978). Social dynamics and communication. â In: Behavior of captive wild animals (Markowitz, H. & Stevens, V., eds). Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, p. 67-106.
-
Fentress, J.C., Ryon, J., McLeod, P.J. & Havkin, G.Z. (1987). A multidimensional approach to agonistic behavior in wolves. â In: Man and wolf (H. Frank, ed.). Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, p. 253-265.
-
Field, R. (1979). A perspective on syntactics of wolf vocalizations. â In: The behavior and ecology of wolves (Klinghammer, E., ed.). Garland, New York, NY, p. 182-205.
-
Fitch, W.T. (2000). The phonetic potential of nonhuman vocal tracts: comparative cineradiographic observations of vocalizing animals. â Phonetica 57: 205-218.
-
Fox, M.W. (1971). The behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. â Harper Press, New York, NY.
-
Frey, R., Volodin, I.A., Fritsch, G. & Volodina, E.V. (2016). Potential sources of high frequency and biphonic vocalization in the Dhole (Cuon alpinus). â PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146330. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0146330.
-
Frommolt, K.-H., Kruchenkova, E.P. & Russig, H. (1997). Individuality of territorial barking in Arctic foxes, Alopex lagopus (L., 1758). â Z. Säugetierk. 62: 66-70.
-
Frommolt, K.H., Goltsman, M.E. & Macdonald, D.W. (2003). Barking foxes, Alopex lagopus: field experiments in individual recognition in a territorial animal. â Anim. Behav. 65: 509-518.
-
Goldman, J.A., Phillips, D.P. & Fentress, J.C. (1995). An acoustic basis for maternal recognition in timber wolves (Canis lupus)? â J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97: 1970-1973.
-
Gustison, M.L. & Townsend, S.W. (2015). A survey of the context and structure of high- and low-amplitude calls in mammals. â Anim. Behav. 105: 281-288.
-
Harrington, F. (1986). Timber wolf howling playback studies: discrimination of pup from adult howls. â Anim. Behav. 34: 1575-1577.
-
Harrington, F. (1987). Aggressive howling in wolves. â Anim. Behav. 35: 7-12.
-
Harrington, F. (1989). Chorus howling by wolves: acoustic structure, pack size and the Beau Geste effect. â Bioacoustics 2: 117-136.
-
Harrington, F. & Asa, C.S. (2003). Wolf communication. â In: Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation (Mech, L.D. & Boitani, L., eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p. 66-103.
-
Harrington, F. & Mech, D.L. (1978). Wolf vocalization. â In: Wolf and man: evolution in parallel (Hall, R.L. & Sharp, H.S., eds). Academic Press, New York, NY, p. 109-131.
-
Harrison, X.A., Donaldson, L., Correa-Cano, M.E., Evans, J., Fisher, D.N., Goodwin, C.E.D., Robinson, B.S., Hodgson, D.J. & Inger, R. (2018). A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. â Peer J 6: e4794.
-
Hull, C.B., Mc Comb, C.M. & Dasson, A.M. (2020). Acoustic identification of wild gray wolves, Canis lupus, using low quality recordings. â Am. J. Undergr. Res. 16: 41-49.
-
Janitza, S. & Hornung, R. (2018). On the overestimation of random forestâs out-of-bag error. â PloS ONE 13: e0201904. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0201904.
-
Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by randomForest. â RÂ news 2(3): 18-22.
-
Mazzini, F., Townsend, S.W., Virányi, Z. & Range, F. (2013). Wolf howling is mediated by relationship quality rather than underlying emotional stress. â Curr. Biol. 23: 1677-1680.
-
Mech, D.L. (1970). The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. â The Natural History Press, New York, NY.
-
Mech, D.L. & Boitani, L. (2003). Wolf social ecology. â In: Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation (Mech, L.D. & Boitani, L., eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p. 1-34.
-
Mitchell, B.R., Makagon, M.M., Jaeger, M.M. & Barrett, R.H. (2006). Information content of coyote barks and howls. â Bioacoustics 15: 289-314.
-
Morton, E.S. (1977). On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some birds and mammal sounds. â Am. Nat. 111: 855-869.
-
Morton, E.S. (1982). Grading, discreteness, redundancy, and motivation-structural rules. â In: Acoustic communication in birds, vol. 1 (Kroodsma, D.E. & Miller, E.H., eds). Academic Press, New York, NY, p. 183-212.
-
Nikolskii, A.A. & Frommolt, K.H. (1989). The acoustic activity of the wolf. â Moscow University Press, Moscow (Translated by T. Neklioudova, 1996).
-
Owings, D.H. & Morton, E.S. (1998). Animal vocal communication: a new approach. â Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-
Packard, J.M. (2003). Wolf behavior: reproductive, social, and intelligence. â In: Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation (Mech, L.D. & Boitani, L., eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p. 35-65.
-
Palacios, V., Font, E., Márquez, R. & Carazo, P. (2015). Recognition of familiarity on the basis of howls: a playback experiment in a captive group of wolves. â Behaviour 152: 593-614.
-
Palagi, E. & Cordoni, G. (2009). Postconflict third party affiliation in Canis lupus: do wolves share similarities with the great apes? â Anim. Behav. 78: 979-986.
-
Passilongo, D., Marchetto, M. & Apollonio, M. (2017). Singing in a wolf chorus: structure and complexity of a multicomponent acoustic behavior. â Hystrix 28: 180-185.
-
Peters, G. (1984). On the structure of friendly close range vocalizations in terrestrial carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora: Fissipedia). â Z. Säugetierk. 49: 157-182.
-
Peters, G. & Wozencraft, W.C. (1989). Acoustic communication by fissiped carnivores. â In: Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution (Gittleman, J.L., ed.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, p. 14-56.
-
R Core Team (2012). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. â R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
-
Riede, T. & Fitch, T. (1999). Vocal tract length and acoustics of vocalization in the domestic dog. â J. Exp. Biol. 202: 2859-2867.
-
Root-Gutteridge, H., Bencsik, M., Chebli, M., Gentle, L.K., Terrell-Nield, C., Bourit, A. & Yarnell, R.W. (2014). Identifying individual wild Eastern grey wolves (Canis lupus lycaon) using fundamental frequency and amplitude of howls. â Bioacoustics 23: 55-66.
-
Sadhukhan, S., Hennelly, L. & Habib, B. (2019). Characterising the harmonic vocal repertoire of the Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes). â PLoS ONE 14: e0216186.
-
Sayigh, L.S. & Janik, V.M. (2019). Individual signatures in animal groups: cetaceans. â In: Encyclopedia of animal behavior, vol. 1, 2nd edn. (Choe, J.C., ed.). Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, p. 539-549.
-
Schamberg, I., Wittig, R.M. & Crockford, C. (2018). Call type signals caller goal: a new take on ultimate and proximate influences in vocal production. â Biol. Rev. 93: 2071-2082.
-
Schassburger, R.M. (1993). Vocal communication in the timber wolf, Canis lupus, L.: structure, motivation, and ontogeny. Advances in ethology 30. â Paul Parey, Berlin.
-
Schneider, J.N. & Anderson, R.E. (2011). Tonal vocalizations in the red wolf (Canis rufus): potential functions of nonlinear sound production. â J. Acous. Soc. Am. 130: 2275-2284.
-
Simpson, E.H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. â Nature 163: 688. DOI:10.1038/163688a0.
-
Snowdon, C.T. & Hodun, A. (1981). Acoustic adaptations in pygmy marmoset contact calls: location cues vary with distances between conspecifics. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9: 295-300.
-
Theberge, J.B. & Falls, J.B. (1967). Howling as a means of communication in timber wolves. â Am. Zool. 7: 331-338.
-
Tooze, Z.J., Harrington, F.H. & Fentress, J.C. (1990). Individually distinct vocalizations in timber wolves. â Anim. Behav. 40: 723-730.
-
Volodin, I.A. & Volodina, E.V. (2002). Biphonation as a prominent feature of dhole Cuon alpinus sounds. â Bioacoustics 15: 105-120.
-
Volodina, E.V., Volodin, I.A., Isaeva, I.V. & Unck, C. (2006). Biphonation may function to enhance individual recognition in the dhole, Cuon alpinus. â Ethology 112: 815-825. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01231.x.
-
Watson, S.K., Townsend, S.W. & Range, F. (2018). Wolf howls encode both sender- and context-specific information. â Anim. Behav. 145: 59-66.
-
Weir, J.N. (1999). The contexts and sound of squeaking vocalizations of wolves (Canis lupus). â MSc thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johnâs, NF.
-
Wilden, I., Herzel, H., Peters, G. & Tembrock, G. (1998). Sub-harmonics, biphonation, and deterministic chaos in mammal vocalization. â Bioacoustics 9: 1-26.
-
Yin, S. & McCowan, B. (2004). Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification. â Anim. Behav. 68: 343-355.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 3956 | 328 | 23 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 90 | 17 | 1 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 168 | 34 | 2 |
The squeaking vocalization of grey wolves (Canis lupus): individuality in a close-range affiliative mammalian vocalisation
äºBehaviourSearch for other papers by Jackie N. Weir in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jennifer N. Schneider in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rita E. Anderson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Wolves (Canis lupus) frequently use the close-range squeaking vocalization, a soft, multi-unit, high-pitched tonal vocalisation. We examined the social and movement contexts of the occurrence and acoustic characteristics of squeaking from videotapes of pack-reared, pack-living captive wolves living in semi-natural conditions at the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research over a three-year period. We only examined squeaking vocalisations for which the sender and potential receiver(s) could be determined. Wolves squeaked in many contexts, especially when approaching other wolves in prosocial and food contexts. Some wolves squeaked more than others. Acoustically, squeaking vocalisations were individually identifiable, primarily through frequency characteristics. Contextual use suggests that squeaking conveys the friendly motivation of an approaching wolf and in aggressive situations, a motivation to defuse or decrease aggression. This close-range vocalisation may play an important role in controlling and coordinating social interactions within the pack.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 3956 | 328 | 23 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 90 | 17 | 1 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 168 | 34 | 2 |
