Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Behav Processes ; 206: 104842, 2023 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36758732

ABSTRACT

Though many forms of animal communication are not reliant on the order in which components of signals are combined to be effective, there is evidence that order does matter for some communication systems. In the light of differential responding to calls of varying note-order observed in black-capped chickadees in the field, we set out to determine whether chickadees recognize syntactically-ordered and incorrectly-ordered chick-a-dee calls as separate and distinct conceptual categories using both an auditory preference task and go/no-go operant conditioning paradigm. Results show that chickadees spent more time on the perch that did not produce sound (i.e., silent perch) than on either of the acoustic perches (i.e., natural and scrambled order chick-a-dee call playback) and visited the perch associated with naturally-ordered calls more often than the perch associated with scrambled-order calls. Birds in both the True natural- and scrambled-order call groups continued to respond according to the contingencies that they learned in Discrimination training, indicating that black-capped chickadees are capable of perceiving and acting upon the categories of natural- versus scrambled-ordered calls.


Subject(s)
Songbirds , Vocalization, Animal , Animals , Animal Communication , Chickens , Conditioning, Operant
2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 17530, 2021 09 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34475418

ABSTRACT

When anthropogenic noise occurs simultaneously with an acoustic signal or cue, it can be difficult for an animal to interpret the information encoded within vocalizations. However, limited research has focused on how anthropogenic noise affects the identification of acoustic communication signals. In songbirds, research has also shown that black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) will shift the pitch and change the frequency at which they sing in the presence of anthropogenic, and experimental noise. Black-capped chickadees produce several vocalizations; their fee-bee song is used for mate attraction and territorial defence, and contains information about dominance hierarchy and native geographic location. Previously, we demonstrated that black-capped chickadees can discriminate between individual female chickadees via their fee-bee songs. Here we used an operant discrimination go/no-go paradigm to discern whether the ability to discriminate between individual female chickadees by their song would be impacted by differing levels of anthropogenic noise. Following discrimination training, two levels of anthropogenic noise (low: 40 dB SPL; high: 75 dB SPL) were played with stimuli to determine how anthropogenic noise would impact discrimination. Results showed that even with low-level noise (40 dB SPL) performance decreased and high-level (75 dB SPL) noise was increasingly detrimental to discrimination. We learned that perception of fee-bee songs does change in the presence of anthropogenic noise such that birds take significantly longer to learn to discriminate between females, but birds were able to generalize responding after learning the discrimination. These results add to the growing literature underscoring the impact of human-made noise on avian wildlife, specifically the impact on perception of auditory signals.


Subject(s)
Acoustics , Animal Communication , Environmental Pollutants/adverse effects , Noise/adverse effects , Songbirds/physiology , Vocalization, Animal/physiology , Animals , Female , Male , Sex Factors , Species Specificity
3.
Am J Infect Control ; 35(5): 319-23, 2007 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17577479

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A long-term care facility (LTCF) reported an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease (LD) in September 2004. METHODS: We conducted case finding through enhanced surveillance, medical record review (n = 131), and community surveys (n = 258). We cultured water samples from the LTCF and assayed their outdoor air-intake filters for Legionella DNA. We also investigated a cooling tower, the only nearby outdoor aerosol source. RESULTS: Among 7 confirmed cases, 2 LTCF residents never exited, and 2 community residents never entered the LTCF during the incubation period. Among 63 water and biofilm samples collected from throughout the LTCF, we found no evidence of Legionella colonization, either in the potable water or air-handling systems. Conversely, we isolated a common outbreak-causing strain of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 from an industrial cooling tower located 0.4 km from the LTCF and recovered L pneumophila DNA from the LTCF's outdoor air-intake filters, suggesting that aerosolized Legionella from the cooling tower most likely entered the LTCF through the air-intake system or, possibly, through open windows. CONCLUSION: Residents of LTCFs can acquire LD from community sources. A cluster of LD cases among LTCF residents does not necessarily indicate transmission from within the LTCF.


Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks , Homes for the Aged , Legionnaires' Disease/epidemiology , Nursing Homes , Water Microbiology , Aerosols , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Air Microbiology , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Community-Acquired Infections/microbiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/microbiology , Disease Reservoirs/microbiology , Female , Humans , Legionnaires' Disease/etiology , Legionnaires' Disease/transmission , Long-Term Care , Male , Middle Aged , North Carolina/epidemiology , Sentinel Surveillance , Water Supply
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL