Hide
Show all
Email this article 
Voice characteristics of some sheep: Utilization to estimation of genetic distance
Abstract
Sound analysis has been carried out in various activities including identification and differentiation of species as well as the preparation of the taxonomy of some animals’ species because of several advantages, including no need to capture or too close to the subject observed. Analysis of voice used to differentiate and to estimate of breeds’ sheep genetic distance has not been reported. This research was conducted to study the character of a few breeds’ sheep sound and likely to be used as a predictor of genetic distance between breeds of sheep. The study was conducted in the Animal House at Indonesian Research Institute for Animal Production, Bogor. A total of 20 head adult of five sheeps (St. Croix cross / SC, Barbados Black Belly cross / BC, Local Garut/LG, Composite Garut / KG and Composites Sumatra / KS) used in this study. Call sound recorded using a digital voice recorder. Sound analysis performed by Raven Software Pro 1.3 for Windows to count as many as 24 variables sound. Analysis of variance of each variable sound was performed using PROC GLM of SAS software Ver. 9.0. It used PROC CANDISC for canonical discriminant analysis and then PROC TREE to build a dendogram. The results showed that there were variations in amplitude, energy, power and frequency variables among the five breeds of sheep. By plotting canonical, LG, KS and BC sheep were from a different group. It was concluded that the sound characteristics variables which can be used as a differentiator breeds of sheep were the third quartile frequency, center frequency, maximum frequency and the first quartile time. Dendogram showed that KG sheep was in the less accurate group. Genetic distance estimation method using voice characteristic data may be applied on sheep.
Key Words: Characteristics, Call Voice, Differentiation, Genetic Distance, SheepKeywords
References
Benz BW, Robbins MB. 2011. Molecular phylogenetics, vocalizations, and species limits in Celeus woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 61:29-44.
Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sunderland (UK): Sinauer Associates.
Brumm H, Naguib M. 2009. Environmental acoustics and the evolution of bird song. In: Naguib M, Janik VM, Zuberbuhler K, Clayton NS, editors. Advances in the Study of Behaviour: Vocal Communication in Birds and Mammals. Vol. 40. London, Burlington, San Diego, Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc. p. 1-34.
Burton JA, Nietsch A. 2010. Geographical variation in duet songs of Sulawesi Tarsiers: Evidence for new cryptic species in South and Southeast Sulawesi. Int J Primatol 31:1123-1146. doi: 10.1007/s10764-010-9449-8.
Castellote M, Fossa F. 2006. Measuring acoustic activity as a method to evaluate welfare in captive Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Aquatic Mammals 32:325-333. doi: 10.1578/AM.32.3.2006.325.
Charif RA, Waack AM, Strickman LM. 2008. Raven Pro 1.3 User’s Manual. New York (USA): Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca.
Chesmore D. 2004. Automated bioacoustic identification of species. Ann Braz Acad Sci. 76:435-440.
Dere´gnaucourt S. 2010. Interspecific hybridization as a tool to understand vocal divergence: The example of crowing in quail (Genus Coturnix). PLoS ONE. 5:e9451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009451.
Engeldal SEC, Subandriyo, Handiwirawan E, Noor RR. 2013. Effect of different levels of social isolation on the acoustical characteristics of sheep vocalization. JITV. 18:208-219.
Esser D, Schehka S, Zimmermann E. 2008. Species-specificity in communication calls of tree shrews (Tupaia: Scandentia). J Mammal. 89:1456-1463.
Ey E, Hammerschmidt K, Seyfarth RM, Fischer J. 2007. Age- and sex-related variations in clear calls of Papio ursinus. Int J Primatol. 28:947-960.
Fitch TW, Neubauer J, Herzel HP. 2002. Calls out of Chaos: The adaptive significance of nonlinear phenomena in mammalian vocal production. Anim Behav. 63:407-418.
Fletcher NH. 2010. A frequency scale rule in mammalian vocalization. In: Brudzynski SM, editor. Handbook of Mammalian Vocalization: An Integrative Neuroscience Approach. First Edition. London, Burlington, San Diego: Elsevier BV. p. 51-56.
Gogala M, Trilar T. 2004. Bioacoustic investigations and taxonomic considerations on the Cicadetta montana species complex (Homoptera: Cicadoidea: Tibicinidae). Ann Braz Acad Sci. 76:316-324.
Hall ML, Kingma SA, Peters A. 2013. Male songbird indicates body size with low-pitched advertising songs. PLoS ONE. 8:e56717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0056717.
Handiwirawan E, Noor RR, Sumantri C, Subandriyo. 2012. The differentiation of sheep breed based on the body measurements. J Indones Trop Anim Agric. 36:1-8.
Krause J, Ruxton GD. 2002. Living in group. New York (USA): Oxford University Press.
Lovell SF, Lein MR. 2013. Geographical variation in songs of a Suboscine Passerine, the Alder. The Wilson J Ornithol. 125:15-23.
Mahler B, Gil D. 2009. The evolution of song in the Phylloscopus Leaf Warblers (Aves: Sylviidae): a tale of sexual selection, habitat adaptation, and morphological constraints. In: Advances in the Study of Behaviour: Vocal Communication in Birds and Mammals. Vol. 40. Naguib M, et al., editors. London, Burlington, San Diego, Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc. p. 35-66.
Manteuffell G, Puppe B, Schon PC. 2004. Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 88: 163-182.
Martin JP, Doucet SM, Knox RC, Mennill DJ. 2011. Body size correlates negatively with the frequency of distress calls and songs of Neotropical birds. J Field Ornithol. 82:259-268. DOI: 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2011.00329.x.
Meen GH, Schellekens MA, Slegers MHM, Leenders NLG, van Erp-van der Kooij E, Noldus LPJJ. 2015. Sound analysis in dairy cattle vocalisation as a potential welfare monitor. Comput Electr Agric. 118:111-115.
Mena EEP, Mora EC. 2011. Geographic song variation in the non-oscine Cuban Tody (Todus multicolor). The Wilson J Ornithol. 123:76-84.
Ohya E. 2004. Identification of Tibicen cicada species by a principal components analysis of their songs. Ann Braz Acad Sci. 76:441-444.
Price T, Arnold K, Zuberbu¨hler K, Semple S. 2009. Pyow but not hack calls of the male putty-nosed monkey (Cercopithcus nictitans) convey information about caller identity. Behaviour. 146:871-888.
Ranft R. 2004. Natural sound archives: Past, present and future. Ann Braz Acad Sci. 76:455-465.
Rheindt FE, Norman JA, Christidis L. 2008. DNA evidence shows vocalizations to be a better indicator of taxonomic limits than plumage patterns in Zimmerius tyrant-flycatchers. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 48:150-156.
Ruppell JC. 2010. Vocal diversity and taxonomy of Nomascus in Central Vietnam and Southern Laos. Int J Primatol. 31:73-94.
SAS. 2002. SAS/STAT User’s guide release 9.0 edition. North Carolina (USA): SAS Institute Inc., Cary.
Schön PC, K Hämel, Puppe B, Tuchscherer A, Kanitz W, Manteuffel G. 2007. Altered vocalization rate during the estrous cycle in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 90:202-206.
Scott G. 2005. Essential animal behavior. Victoria (Australia): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sèbe F, Duboscq J, Aubin T, Ligout S, Poindron P. 2010. Early vocal recognition of mother by lambs: contribution of low- and high-frequency vocalizations. Anim Behav. 79:1055-1066.
Shillito-Waser EE, Hague P. 1980. Variation in the structure of bleats from sheep of four different breeds. Behaviour. 75:21-35.
Siebert K, Langbein J, Schon P, Tuchscherer A, Puppe B. 2011. Degree of social isolation affects behavioural and vocal response patterns in dwarf goats (Capra hirscus). J Appl Anim Behav Sci. 131:53-62.
Suzuki TN. 2014. Communication about predator type by a bird using discrete, graded and combinatorial variation in alarm calls. Anim Behav. 87:59-65.
Taylor AM, Reby D. 2010. The contribution of the source-filter theory to mammal vocal communication research. Mammal Vocal Communication and Cognition Research. Brighton (UK): School of Psychology, University of Sussex,
Vannoni E, McElligott AG. 2008. Low frequency groans indicate larger and more dominant fallow deer
(Dama dama) males. PLoS ONE. 3:e3113.
Weary DM, Fraser D. 1995. Signalling need. Costly signals and animal welfare assessment. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 44:159-169.
Wyman MT, Mooring MS, Mc Cowan B, Cecilia M,
Penedo T, Hart LA. 2008. Amplitude of bison bellows reflects male quality, physical condition and motivation. Anim Behav. 76:1625-1639. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008. 05.032.
Zhang SY, Zhao HH, Feng J, Sheng LX, Wang H, Wang LX. 2000. Relationship between echolocation frequency and body size in two species of hipposiderid bats. Chin Sci Bull. 45:1587-1590.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
