{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020752895752895753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.70873786407767, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A field test of the audibility of urban versus rural songs in mountain chickadees

Anthropogenic noise can mask avian vocalizations, and several urban‐dwelling species adjust frequency or amplitude of vocalizations in ways that appear to compensate for increased noise levels. Playback studies have investigated whether receivers differentiate between signals produced by rural and urban males, but it is difficult to determine whether differential response to stimulus reflects differences in audibility versus perceived differences in male signals/condition that result from urban settlement. Here, we performed paired‐playback trials to determine whether mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli) differentiate urban versus rural songs when both stimuli were broadcast within noise. For each playback, stimuli were played in short bouts starting at a low signal‐to‐noise ratio and increasing in relative amplitude with each successive bout. If the primary function of adjusted urban songs is propagation in noise, we hypothesized that focal males would respond sooner to urban versus rural playbacks (detect at lower signal‐to‐noise ratios). If urban songs solely encode information about the male's condition (such as increased aggression), then we predicted only a differential aggressive response to playbacks once detected. If urban songs both increase propagation and embed information on male condition, we predicted a combination of both response types. We found no difference in latency to first response in urban versus rural songs, but some evidence for differential aggression to playback dependent on both stimulus type (urban vs. rural) and local ambient noise levels; focal males in noisy (urban) sites responded aggressively to both stimulus types, whereas focal males in quiet (rural) sites responded more aggressively to urban than to rural stimuli. This context‐dependent discrimination may be the result of increased aggression in urban habitats, improved communication in noisy habitats by urban signallers and receivers, or some combination of the two.