Are dialects socially learned in marmoset monkeys? Evidence from translocation experiments
Autoři:
Yvonne Zürcher aff001; Erik P. Willems aff001; Judith M. Burkart aff001
Působiště autorů:
Department of Anthropology, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse, Zürich, Switzerland
aff001
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222486
Souhrn
The acoustic properties of vocalizations in common marmosets differ between populations. These differences may be the result of social vocal learning, but they can also result from environmental or genetic differences between populations. We performed translocation experiments to separately quantify the influence of a change in the physical environment (experiment 1), and a change in the social environment (experiment 2) on the acoustic properties of calls from individual captive common marmosets. If population differences were due to genetic differences, we expected no change in the vocalizations of the translocated marmosets. If differences were due to environmental factors, we expected vocalizations to permanently change contingent with environmental changes. If social learning was involved, we expected that the vocalizations of animals translocated to a new population with a different dialect would become more similar to the new population. In experiment 1, we translocated marmosets to a different physical environment without changing the social composition of the groups or their neighbours. Immediately after the translocation to the new facility, one out of three call types showed a significant change in call structure, but 5–6 weeks later, the calls were no longer different from before the translocation. Thus, the novel physical environment did not induce long lasting changes in the vocalizations of the marmosets. In experiment 2, we translocated marmosets to a new population with a different dialect. Importantly, our previous work had shown that these two populations differed significantly in vocalization structure. The translocated marmosets were still housed in their original social group, but after translocation they were surrounded by the vocalizations from neighbouring groups of the new population. The vocal distance between the translocated individuals and the new population decreased for two out of three call types over 16 weeks. Thus, even without direct social contact or interaction, the vocalizations of the translocated animals converged towards the new population, indicating that common marmosets can modify their calls due to acoustic input from conspecifics alone, via crowd vocal learning. To our knowledge, this is the first study able to distinguish between different explanations for vocal dialects as well as to show crowd vocal learning in a primate species.
Klíčová slova:
Population genetics – Bioacoustics – Acoustics – Primates – Monkeys – Animal sociality – Vocalization – Marmosets
Zdroje
1. Henry L, Barbu S, Lemasson A, Hausberger M. Dialects in animals: Evidence, development and potential functions. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2015;2(2):132–55.
2. Lameira AR, Delgado RA, Wich SA. Review of geographic variation in terrestrial mammalian acoustic signals: Human speech variation in a comparative perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology. 2010;8(4):309–32.
3. Ruch H, Zürcher Y, Burkart JM. The function and mechanism of vocal accommodation in humans and other primates. Biological Reviews. 2018;93(2):996–1013. doi: 10.1111/brv.12382 29111610
4. Fedurek P, Slocombe KE. Primate vocal communication: a useful tool for understanding human speech and language evolution? Human Biology. 2011;83(2):153–73. doi: 10.3378/027.083.0202 21615284
5. Wolfram W. Dialect in society. In: Coulmas F, editor. The handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell; 1998. p. 107–26.
6. Baker MC, Cunningham MA. The biology of bird-song dialects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1985;8(1):85–100.
7. Schlenker P, Chemla E, Arnold K, Lemasson A, Ouattara K, Keenan S, et al. Monkey semantics: two ‘dialects’ of Campbell’s monkey alarm calls. Linguistics and Philosophy. 2014;37(6):439–501.
8. Mitani JC, Hasegawa T, Gros-Louis J, Marler P, Byrne R. Dialects in wild chimpanzees? American Journal of Primatology. 1992;27:233–43.
9. de la Torre S, Snowdon CT. Dialects in pygmy marmosets? Population variation in call structure. American Journal of Primatology. 2009 Apr;71(4):333–42. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20657 19132731.
10. Egnor SE, Hauser MD. A paradox in the evolution of primate vocal learning. Trends in Neurosciences. 2004 Nov;27(11):649–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2004.08.009 15474164.
11. Crockford C, Herbinger I, Vigilant L, Boesch C. Wild chimpanzees produce group-specific calls: a case for vocal learning? Ethology. 2004;110:221–43.
12. Takahashi DY, Fenley AR, Teramoto Y, Narayanan DZ, Borjon JI, Holmes P, et al. The developmental dynamics of marmoset monkey vocal production. Science. 2015;349(6249):734–8. doi: 10.1126/science.aab1058 26273055
13. Takahashi DY, Fenley AR, Ghazanfar AA. Early development of turn-taking with parents shapes vocal acoustics in infant marmoset monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2016;371(1693):20150370. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0370 27069047
14. Gultekin YB, Hage SR. Limiting parental feedback disrupts vocal development in marmoset monkeys. Nature Communications. 2017 Jan 16;8:14046. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14046 28090084.
15. Gultekin YB, Hage SR. Limiting parental interaction during vocal development affects acoustic call structure in marmoset monkeys. Science Advances. 2018;4(4):eaar4012. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar4012 29651461
16. Snowdon CT, Elowson MA. 'Babbling' in Pygmy Marmosets: Development after infancy. Behaviour. 2001;138(10):1235–48.
17. Elowson MA, Snowdon CT, Lazaro-Perea C. ‘Babbling’ and social context in infant monkeys: parallels to human infants. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1998;2(1):31–7. 21244960
18. Elowson MA, Snowdon CT, Lazaro-Perea C. Infant 'babbling' in a nonhuman primate: Complex vocal sequences with repeated call types. Behaviour. 1998;135:643–64.
19. de la Torre S, Snowdon CT. Environmental correlates of vocal communication of wild pygmy marmosets, Cebuella pygmaea. Animal Behaviour. 2002;63(5):847–56.
20. Tanaka T, Sugiura H, Masataka N. Sound transmission in the habitats of Japanese macaques and its possible effect on population differences in coo calls. Behaviour. 2006;143(8):993–1012.
21. Laland KN, Hoppitt W. Do animals have culture? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2003;12(3):150–9.
22. Snowdon CT. Language parallels in New World primates. Animal models of speech and language disorders: Springer; 2013. p. 241–61.
23. Snowdon CT. Vocal communication in family-living and pair-bonded primates. Primate Hearing and Communication: Springer; 2017. p. 141–74.
24. Zürcher Y, Burkart JM. Evidence for dialects in three captive populations of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). International Journal of Primatology. 2017;38(4):780–93.
25. Vitale A, Zanzoni M, Queyras A, Chiarotti F. Degree of social contact affects the emission of food calls in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). American Journal of Primatology. 2003 Jan;59(1):21–8. doi: 10.1002/ajp.10060 12526036.
26. Bezerra BM, Souto A. Structure and usage of the vocal repertoire of Callithrix jacchus. International Journal of Primatology. 2008;29(3):671–701.
27. Prat Y, Azoulay L, Dor R, Yovel Y. Crowd vocal learning induces vocal dialects in bats: Playback of conspecifics shapes fundamental frequency usage by pups. PLoS biology. 2017;15(10):e2002556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002556 29088225
28. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.75)[Computer program]. Retrieved April 30, 2014 from http://www.praat.org. 2009.
29. Mundry R, Sommer C. Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative. Animal Behaviour. 2007;74(4):965–76.
30. Elowson MA, Snowdon CT. Pygmy marmosets, Cebuella pygmaea, modify vocal structure in response to changed social environment. Animal Behaviour. 1994;47(6):1267–77.
31. Rukstalis M, Fite JE, French JA. Social change affects vocal structure in a callitrichid primate (Callithrix kuhlii). Ethology. 2003;109:327–40.
32. Watson SK, Townsend SW, Schel AM, Wilke C, Wallace EK, Cheng L, et al. Vocal learning in the functionally referential food grunts of chimpanzees. Current Biology. 2015;25(4):495–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.032 25660548
33. Fischer J, Wheeler BC, Higham JP. Is there any evidence for vocal learning in chimpanzee food calls? Current Biology. 2015;25(21):R1028–R9. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.010 26528740
34. Watson SK, Townsend SW, Schel AM, Wilke C, Wallace EK, Cheng L, et al. Reply to Fischer et al. Current Biology. 2015;25(21):R1030–R1. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.024 26528741
35. Snowdon CT, de la Torre S. Multiple environmental contexts and communication in pygmy marmosets (Cebuella pygmaea). Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2002;116(2):182–8. 12083614
36. Ey E, Rahn C, Hammerschmidt K, Fischer J. Wild female olive baboons adapt their grunt vocalizations to environmental conditions. Ethology. 2009;115(5):493–503.
37. Hammerschmidt K, Freudenstein T, Jürgens U. Vocal development in squirrel monkeys. Behaviour. 2001;138(9):1179–204.
38. Owren MJ, Dieter JA, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL. 'Food' calls produced by adult female rhesus (Macaca mulatta) and japanese (M. Fuscata) macaques, their normally-raised offspring and offspring cross-fostered between species. Behaviour, 1992;120(3–4):218–231.
39. Takahashi DY, Liao DA, Ghazanfar AA. Vocal learning via social reinforcement by infant marmoset monkeys. Current Biology. 2017;27(12):1844–52. e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.004 28552359
40. Snowdon CT. Social processes in communication and cognition in callitrichid monkeys: a review. Animal Cognition. 2001 Nov;4(3–4):247–57. doi: 10.1007/s100710100094 24777515.
41. Chow CP, Mitchell JF, Miller CT. Vocal turn-taking in a non-human primate is learned during ontogeny. Proceedings Biological Sciences / The Royal Society. 2015 May 22;282(1807):20150069. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.0069 25904663. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4424641.
42. Takahashi DY, Narayanan DZ, Ghazanfar AA. Coupled oscillator dynamics of vocal turn-taking in monkeys. Current Biology. 2013;23(21):2162–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.09.005 24139740
43. Roy S, Miller CT, Gottsch D, Wang X. Vocal control by the common marmoset in the presence of interfering noise. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2011 Nov 1;214(Pt 21):3619–29. doi: 10.1242/jeb.056101 21993791. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3192021.
44. Snowdon CT, Elowson MA. Pygmy marmoset modify their call structure when paired. Ethology. 1999;105:782–897.
45. Marx V. Neurobiology: learning from marmosets. Nature Publishing Group; 2016.
46. Miller CT, Freiwald WA, Leopold DA, Mitchell JF, Silva AC, Wang X. Marmosets: A Neuroscientific Model of Human Social Behavior. Neuron. 2016 Apr 20;90(2):219–33. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.018 27100195. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4840471.
47. Eliades SJ, Miller CT. Marmoset vocal communication: behavior and neurobiology. Developmental Neurobiology. 2017;77(3):286–99. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22464 27739195
48. Marshall-Pescini S, Dale R, Quervel-Chaumette M, Range F. Critical issues in experimental studies of prosociality in non-human species. Animal Cognition. 2016;19(4):679–705. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-0973-6 27000780
49. Burkart J, Martins EG, Miss F, Zürcher Y. From sharing food to sharing information. Interaction Studies. 2018;19(1–2):136–50.
50. Reby D, McComb K. Anatomical constraints generate honesty: acoustic cues to age and weight in the roars of red deer stags. Animal Behaviour. 2003;65(3):519–30.
51. Briefer E, McElligott AG. Indicators of age, body size and sex in goat kid calls revealed using the source–filter theory. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011;133(3):175–85.
52. Raiche G. nFactors: An R package for parallel analysis and non graphical solutions to the Cattell scree test (R Package Version 2.3. 3)[Computer software]. 2010.
53. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. 2017. 2017 2017-12-06;82(13):26. Epub 2017-11-29.
54. Barton K. MuMIn: multi-model inference, R package version 0.12. 0. http://r-forger-projectorg/projects/mumin/. 2009.
55. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis Springer-Verlag New York. Version; 2009.
56. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2013;4(2):133–42.
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 10
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- Masturbační chování žen v ČR − dotazníková studie
- Těžké menstruační krvácení může značit poruchu krevní srážlivosti. Jaký management vyšetření a léčby je v takovém případě vhodný?
- Fixní kombinace paracetamol/kodein nabízí synergické analgetické účinky
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Correction: Low dose naltrexone: Effects on medication in rheumatoid and seropositive arthritis. A nationwide register-based controlled quasi-experimental before-after study
- Combining CDK4/6 inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib with cytotoxic agents does not enhance cytotoxicity
- Experimentally validated simulation of coronary stents considering different dogboning ratios and asymmetric stent positioning
- Risk factors associated with IgA vasculitis with nephritis (Henoch–Schönlein purpura nephritis) progressing to unfavorable outcomes: A meta-analysis