01939nas a2200145   4500008004100000022001400041245012700055210006900182260001600251300001600267490000800283520143100291100002001722856005101742       2018                        eng d  a0001-496600aPotential changes in the communication space of humpback whale social sounds in increasing wind and vessel-dominated noise0 aPotential changes in the communication space of humpback whale s  cJan-09-2018  a1885 - 18850 v1443 a<p>An animal communication network involves complex acoustic interactions between multiple senders, receivers, and eavesdroppers. Any reduction in communication space, due to signal masking, may have detrimental effects on their ability to obtain social information. Humpback whales use social sounds (vocal and surface-generated percussive sounds) for within-, and between-, group communication. To generate masking models, and infer communication space, changes in signal-above-noise and frequency content of received humpback whale social sounds were modelled with the combined effect of increasing background noise (wind or vessel-dominated) and distance from the source (signalling whale). Results suggest that the signaler&rsquo;s communication space in increasing wind-dominated noise (shallow water) was maintained out to approximately 3 km by using a Lombard response. In high wind noise (over 105 dB re 1 &mu;Pa; 12&ndash;15 knots), the vocal communication space was significantly reduced, though the increased use of surface-generated sounds likely aided in maintaining this space. In vessel-dominated noise, communication space was significantly reduced in levels exceeding 110 dB re 1 &mu;Pa (vessel within approximately 2 km), with no evidence that the signaler switched to using surface-generated sounds. These models can be updated as more information on humpback auditory capabilities becomes available.</p>
1 aDunlop, Rebecca  uhttp://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.506826202653nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001300041245009500054210006900149260001600218300001200234490000800246520190100254653001602155653001502171653001602186653001202202653001802214100001902232700002002251700001702271700001902288700002602307856006602333       2017                        eng d  a0003347200aHens vary their vocal repertoire and structure when anticipating different types of reward0 aHens vary their vocal repertoire and structure when anticipating  cJan-08-2017  a79 - 960 v1303 aThe vocalizations of nonhuman animals are considered potential indicators of motivational or internal state. In many species, different call types, and structural variation within call types, encode information about physical characteristics such as age or sex, or about variable traits such as motivation. Domestic chickens, Gallus gallus, have an elaborate vocal repertoire, enabling investigation into whether reward-related arousal is encoded within their call type and structure. Twelve hens were given a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm using sound cues to signal the availability of two food rewards (mealworms, normal food), one nonfood reward (a container of substrate suitable for dustbathing), and a sound-neutral event (sound cue, no reward). A muted-neutral treatment (no sound cue, no reward) provided a baseline for vocal behaviour. Sound cues preceded a 15 s anticipation period during which vocalizations were recorded. Hens produced a ‘Food call’ (previously defined in other studies) in anticipation of all rewards, including the nonfood reward. ‘Food calls’ and ‘Fast clucks’ were more prevalent in anticipation of rewards, and most prevalent following the cue signalling the dustbathing substrate, suggesting that this reward induced the most arousal in hens. The peak frequency of ‘Food calls’ made in anticipation of the dustbathing substrate was significantly lower than those made in anticipation of food rewards, potentially reflecting differences in arousal. Vocalizations that reliably indicate hens' motivational state could be used as measures of welfare in on-farm assessment situations. Our study is the first to reveal variation in the frequency-related parameters of the ‘Food call’ in different contexts, and to show the prevalence of different call types in reward and nonreward contexts, which may have implications for welfare assessments.10alaying hens10amotivation10areferential10arewards10avocalizations1 aMcGrath, Nicky1 aDunlop, Rebecca1 aDwyer, Cathy1 aBurman, Oliver1 aPhillips, Clive, J.C.  uhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003347217301707