Have been very intrigued by vocalizations since first noticing that our neighbor's flock's "talk" differed noticeably from our flock's "interactions". This interest grew, as the baby monitor in coop revealed considerable vocal activity during certain times of the night (not counting growling at one another over roost space, or alerts announcing a ground pred shuffling through the dried leaves near coop). Shortly after we transitioned our first 10 pullets from the brooder into the coop, we got to hear the flock "sing" (chortle) in unison. Sounded like a chorus of rapid growling - but lilting & transposed to a higher "key". They repeated the song a couple of times. Immediately thereafter, we heard the rain begin pattering against the roof. I wondered if this vocalization wasn't some "atavistic" behavior inherited from their Jungle Fowl ancestors (still can't say for certain - remains the best hypothesis I can generate - posit the same about their voracious appetite for the leaves of the Fuschia Princess from the first time they found that South East Asian/Pacific "jungle" plant, on the back deck).
Anyway, reposting Collias' research on vocalizations
https://sora.unm.edu/node/103838 (pdf downloadable - quoted, below):
VOCAL REPERTOIRE OF THE RED JUNGLEFOWL: A SPECTROGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION AND THE CODE OF COMMUNICATION NICHOLAS E. COLLIAS
I stripped out all but the essentials, however, every growl/whine/purr/etc. is described in extensive detail (in context-illustrated by sonograms) in the linked paper. Collias made his observations of, and performed his sonograms on, the flock of Red Jungle Fowl that used to be maintained at the San Diego Zoo.
1. Rising pitch (pleasure) vs. falling pitch (distress) (chicks)
2. Clear tones (attract) vs. white noise hiss (repel)
3. Low pitched (attract) vs. high pitched notes (repel)
4. Brief notes (attract) vs. long notes (repel)
5. Soft notes (attract) vs. loud notes (repel)
6. Slow to fast repetition rate of notes (increased stimulus intensity)
7. Regular to irregular repetition of notes (increased stimulus intensity)
8. Gradual onset of call (set to respond) vs. abrupt onset of call (startle)
9. Steady tones (secure) vs. wavering tones (disturbed)
10. Consistent number of notes (stereotyped) vs. inconsistent number of notes (flexibility)
Specific calls (see paper for details, i.e., chevron calls/intergradiation of calls), each is comprised of signals (vocalizations) appropriate to a given context.
1.Chick calls expressing insecurity or security
2. Attraction calls of hen to chicks
3. Attraction calls of a cock to hens
4. Calls of well being or contentment by adults
5. Adult calls of mild disturbance
6. Warning calls announcing a predator on the ground or perched
7. Warning announcing a flying predator
8. Aggressive calls
9. Crowing
When our girls were still pullets on the `learning curve I observed behavior (increased chance of advantageous foraging by means of `delay of gratification, i.e., `malice aforethought). One pullet had managed to take down a large, `armored, Tree Boring beetle. As it worked to tear off the wing covers and get at the `meat, two other pullets, nearby, continued to pick at vegetation and made no move to `share the `bugged' pullet's feast. When that pullet finally made her way through the beetle's shell, the other two pullets rushed her and one made off with it, and the chase was on.
Collias makes reference to something similar in vocal signaling:
"In experiments with domestic fowl cocks exposed to a hen who could not see the food automatically presented to the cock, the rate and number of food calls given by the cock increased with the preference ranking (palatability) of the food. A hen was more likely to approach the male when he was calling than when he was silent after food was presented to him (Marler et al. 1986a). A cock would food-call significantly less with no audience than in the presence of a hen; he would even food-call to a hen over non-food items especially in the presence of a strange hen (Marler et al. 1986b). Since a cock often refrains from ingesting a food item after calling a hen to it, just as a hen does after calling her chicks to food, a possible inference is that the behavior is intentional and implies that the caller plans ahead of time to share the food with the receiver (Marler et al. 1986b)."
The observations of behaviors (vocal or otherwise) that might suggest a degree of `delay of gratification - `planning', could indicate a certain `presence of `mind that is not often considered part of the lowly chook's armamentarium; though some roosters penchant for attacking from ambush is well known and reported in the forum, weekly.
