CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorMarine animal studies overviewBat Biology and Ecology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Old World frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics

Narins, Peter M., Feng, Albert S., Lin, Wenyu, Schnitzler, Hans-Ulrich, Denzinger, Annette, Suthers, Roderick A., Xu, Chunhe·2004·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/1.1636851
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several groups of mammals such as bats, dolphins and whales are known to produce ultrasonic signals which are used for navigation and hunting by means of echolocation, as well as for communication. In contrast, frogs and birds produce sounds during night- and day-time hours that are audible to humans; their sounds are so pervasive that together with those of insects, they are considered the primary sounds of nature. Here we show that an Old World frog (Amolops tormotus) and an oscine songbird (Abroscopus albogularis) living near noisy streams reliably produce acoustic signals that contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. Our findings provide the first evidence that anurans and passerines are capable of generating tonal ultrasonic call components and should stimulate the quest for additional ultrasonic species.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.1636851

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 1973, How the owl tracks his prey, Am. Sci., 61, 414

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 153

Related

Metadata

Authors
Narins, P. M., Feng, A. S., Lin, W., Schnitzler, H.-U., Denzinger, A., Suthers, R. A., & Xu, C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
2004-01-30
Volume
115
Issue
2
Pages
910-913
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/1.1636851
OpenAlex
W2063786604
Cited by
153
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dc000663-12)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC-00663, R01DC00222, R01DC000222)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
frog vocalization, bird vocalizations, acoustic communication, noisy environments, songbirds
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Communication, China, Fourier Analysis, Noise, Perceptual Masking, Ranidae, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Sound Spectrography, Ultrasonics, Vocalization, Animal, Songbirds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review