To trill or not to trill? Territorial response to a heterospecific vocal trait in male collared doves, Streptopelia decaocto

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 694-701

  Secondi, Jean ^a,b   Den Hartog, Paula M ^a   Ten Cate, Carel ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Columbidae; Signal evolution; Song complexity; Territorial interactions; Trait loss; Trill

Indexed keywords

INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; TERRITORIALITY; VOCALIZATION;

AVES; COLUMBIDAE; COLUMBIFORMES; STREPTOPELIA; STREPTOPELIA DECAOCTO; STREPTOPELIA ROSEOGRISEA;

EID: 0142095015     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arg058     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baptista LF, 1996. Nature and its nuturing in avian vocal development. In: Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds (Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds). Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 39-60.
2. Basolo AL, 1990. Female preferences predate the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
3. Catchpole CK, Leisler B, 1996. Female aquatic warblers (Acrocephalus paludicola) are attracted by playback of longer and more complicated songs. Behaviour 133:1153-1164.
4. Collins SA, 1999. Is female preference for male repertoires due to sensory bias? Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2309-2314.
5. del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (eds), 1997. Handbook of the birds of the world: sandgrouses to cuckoos, vol. 4. Barcelona, Lynx edición.
6. Doutrelant C, Leitao A, Otter K, Lambrechts MM, 2000. Effect of blue tit song syntax on great tit territorial responsiveness: an experimental test of the character shift hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:119-124.
7. Endler JA, Basolo AL, 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415-420.
8. Enquist M, Arak A, 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372:169-172.
9. Goodwin D, 1983. Pigeons and doves of the world. London: British Museum of Natural History.
10. Götmark F, Ahlström M, 1997. Parental preference for red mouth of chicks in a songbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:959-962.
11. Gray DA, Hagelin JC, 1996. Song repertoire and sensory exploitation: reconsidering the case of the common grackle. Anim Behav 52:795-800.
12. Hunt S, Cuthill IC, Swaddle JP, Bennet ATD, 1997. Ultraviolet vision and band-colour preferences in female zebra finches, Taenopygia guttata. Anim Behav 54:1383-1392.
13. Johnson KP, 2000. The evolution of courtship display repertoire size in the dabbling ducks (Anatini). J Evol Biol 13:634-644.
14. Johnson KP, de Kort SR, Dinwoodey K, Mateman CA, ten Cate C, Lessells CM, Clayton DH, 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the dove genus Streptopelia. Auk 118:878-884.
15. Jones IL, Hunter FM, 1998. Heterospecific mating preferences for a feather ornament in least auklets. Behav Ecol 9:187-192.
16. Kime NM, Rand AS, Kapfer M, Rand MJ, 1998. Consistency of female choice in the Túngara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters. Anim Behav 55:641-659.
17. Lade BI, Thorpe WH, 1964. Dove songs are innately coded patterns of specific behaviour. Nature 202:366-368.
18. Martin TE, Badyaev AV, 1996. Sexual dichromatism in birds: importance of nest predation and nest location for females versus males. Evolution 50:2454-2460.
19. Morris MR, Ryan MJ, 1996. Sexual differences in signal receiver-coevolution. Anim Behav 52:1017-1024.
20. Neubauer RL, 2000. Super-normal lenght song preferences of female zebra finches (Taenopygia guttata) and a theory of the evolution of bird song. Evol Biol 13:365-380.
21. Proctor HC, 1992. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Anim Behav 44:745-752.
22. Quinn VS, Hews DK, 2000. Signals and behavioural responses are not coupled in males: aggression affected by replacement of an evolutionary lost colour signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:755-758.
23. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female choices and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4-S35.
24. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara grog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305-314.
25. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1998. Evoked vocal response in male túngara frog. Anim Behav 56:1509-1516.
26. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1999. Phylogenetic influences on mating call preferences in female tungara frogs, Physaelemus pustulosus. Anim Behav 57:945-956.
27. Sakaluk SK, 2000. Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:339-343.
28. Secondi J, de Bakker M, ten Cate C, 2003. Female response to male coos in the collared dove Streptopelia decaocto. Behaviour 139:1287-1302.
29. Shutler D, Weatherhead PJ, 1990. Targets of sexual selection: song and plumage of wood warblers. Evolution 44:1967-1977.
30. Slabbekoorn H, De Kort S, ten Cate C, 1999. Comparative analysis of perch-coo vocalizations in Streptopelia doves. Auk 116:737-748.
31. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C, 1996. Responses of collared doves to playback of coos. Behav Process 38:169-174.
32. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C, 1997. Stronger responses to modulated coos in collared doves. Anim Behav 54:955-965.
33. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C, 1998. Perceptual tuning to frequency characteristics of territorial signals in collared doves. Anim Behav 56:847-857.
34. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C, 1999. Collared dove responses to playback: slaves to the rhythm. Ethology 105:377-391.
35. Sokal RR, Rolf FJ, 1995. Biometry. New York: Freeman.
36. ten Cate C, 1992. Coo types in the collared dove Streptopelia decaocto: one theme, distinct variations. Bioacoustics 4:161-183.
37. ten Cate C, Slabbekoorn H, Ballintijn MR, 2002. Birdsong and male-male competition: causes and consequences of vocal variability in the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto). Adv Stud Behav 31:31-75.
38. Wiens JJ, 1999. Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of a sexually selected character in phrynosomatid lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1529-1535.
39. Wiens JJ, 2001. Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends Ecol Evol 16:517-523.
40. Wiley RH, Richards DG, 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Acoustic communication in birds, vol. 1 (Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds). New York: Academic Press; 131-181.
41. Witte K, Curio E, 1999. Sexes of a monomorphic species differ in preferences for mates with a novel trait. Behav Ecol 10:15-21.