↓ Skip to main content

Changes in vocal parameters with social context in humpback whales: considering the effect of bystanders

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Changes in vocal parameters with social context in humpback whales: considering the effect of bystanders
Published in
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00265-016-2108-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca A. Dunlop

Abstract

Many theories and communication models developed from terrestrial studies focus on a simple dyadic exchange between a sender and receiver. During social interactions, the "frequency code" hypothesis suggests that frequency characteristics of vocal signals can simultaneously encode for static signaler attributes (size or sex) and dynamic information, such as motivation or emotional state. However, the additional presence of a bystander may result in a change of signaling behavior if the costs and benefits associated with the presence of this bystander are different from that of a simple dyad. In this study, two common humpback whale social calls ("wops" and "grumbles") were tested for differences related to group social behavior and the presence of bystanders. "Wop" parameters were stable with group social behavior, but were emitted at lower (14 dB) levels in the presence of a nearby singing whale compared to when a singing whale was not in the area. "Grumbles" were emitted at lower (30-39 Hz) fundamental frequencies in affiliative compared to non-affiliative groups and, in the presence of a nearby singing whale, were also emitted at lower (14 dB) levels. Vocal rates did not significantly change. The results suggest that, in humpbacks, the frequency in certain sound types relates to the social behavior of the vocalizing group, implying a frequency code system. The presence of a nearby audible bystander (a singing whale) had no effect on this frequency code, but by reducing their acoustic level, the signal-to-noise ratio at the singer would have been below 0, making it difficult for the singer to audibly detect the group. The frequency, duration, and amplitude parameters of humpback whale social vocalizations were tested between different social contexts: group social behavior (affiliating versus non-affiliating), the presence of a nearby singing whale, and the presence of a nearby non-singing group. "Grumbles" (commonly heard low-frequency unmodulated sounds) frequencies were lower in affiliating groups compared to non-affiliating groups, suggesting a change in group motivation (such as levels of aggression). "Wop" (another common sound type) structure (frequency and duration) was similar in affiliating and non-affiliating groups. In the presence of an audible bystander (a singing whale), both sound types were emitted at similar rates, but much lower amplitudes (14 dB), vastly reducing the detectability of these sounds by the singer. This suggests that these groups were acoustically avoiding the singing whale. They did not, however, acoustically respond to the presence of a nearby non-singing group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 20%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 39%
Environmental Science 17 22%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,028,390
of 24,093,053 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
#555
of 3,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,199
of 304,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
#13
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,093,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.