Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: An experimental test

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 163-168

  Ballentine, Barbara ^a   Hyman, Jeremy ^a   Nowicki, Stephen ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bird song; Female choice; Indicator mechanism; Melospiza georgiana; Motor constraint; Sexual selection; Vocal performance

Indexed keywords

BIRD; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MATING BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG;

AVES; MELOSPIZA; MELOSPIZA GEORGIANA; PASSERI; PASSERIDAE;

EID: 1542545606     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arg090     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alatalo RV, Glynn C, Lundberg A, 1990. Singing rate and female attraction in the pied flycatcher: an experiment. Anim Behav 39: 601-603.
2. Andersson MB, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
3. Blackburn TM, Lawton JH, Perry JN, 1992. A method of estimating the slope of upper bounds of plots of body size and abundance in natural animal assemblages. Oikos 65:107-112.
4. Boake CR, 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3:173-182.
5. Buchanan KL, 2000. Stress and the evolution of condition-dependent signals. Trends Ecol Evol 15:156-160.
6. Catchpole CK, 1986. Song repertoires and reproductive success in the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:439-445.
7. Catchpole CK, 1996. Song and female choice: good genes and big brains? Trends Ecol Evol 11:358-360.
8. Catchpole CK, Dittami J, Leisler B, 1984. Differential responses to male song in female songbirds implanted with oestradiol. Nature 312:563-564.
9. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB, 1995. Bird song. Cambridge: University Press.
10. Drǎgǎnoiu TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M, 2002. Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2525-2531.
11. Eberhardt LS, 1994. Oxygen consumption during sing by male Carolina wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Auk 111:124-130.
12. Eens M, Pinxten R, Verheyen RF, 1991. Male song as a cue for mate choice in the European starling. Behaviour 116:21-238.
13. Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B, 2002. A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1479-1485.
14. Garland TJ, Losos JB, 1994. Ecological morphology of locomotor performance in squamate reptiles. In: Ecological morphology: integrative organismal biology (Wainwright PC, Reilly SM, eds).Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 240-302.
15. Gibbs HL, Grant PR, 1987. Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches. Nature 327:511-513.
16. Gil D, Gahr M, 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133-141.
17. Grafen A, 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144: 517-546.
18. Grant PR, 1999. Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
19. Greig-Smith PW, 1982. Song rates and parental care by individual male stonechats Saxicola torquata. Anim Behav 30:245-252.
20. Hoese WJ, Podos J, Boetticher NC, Nowicki S, 2000. Vocal tract function in birdsong production: experimental manipulation of beak movements. J Exp Biol 203:1845-1855.
21. Johnstone RA, Grafen A, 1993. Dishonesty and the handicap principle. Anim Behav 46:759-764.
22. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Dhondt AA, 1997. Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav Ecol 8:481-492.
23. King AP, West MJ, 1977. Species identification in the North American cowbird: appropriate responses to abnormal song. Science 195: 1002-1004.
24. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
25. Lambrechts MM, 1996. Organization of birdsong and constraints on performance. In: Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds (Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; 305-320
26. Lessells CM, Boag PT, 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116-121.
27. Marler P, Pickert R, 1984. Species-universal microstructure in the learned song of swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). Anim Behav 32:673-689.
28. McGregor PK, Catchpole CK, Dabelsteen T, Falls JB, Fusani L, Gerhardt HC, Gilbert F, Horn AG, Klump GM, Kroodsma DE, Lambrechts MM, McComb KE, Nelson DA, Pepperberg IM, Ratcliffe L, Searcy WA, Weary DM, 1992. Design of playback experiments: the Thornbridge Hall NATO ARW Consensus. In: Playback and studies of animal communication (McGregor PK, ed). New York: Plenum Press; 1-9.
29. Mowbray TB, 1997. Swamp sparrow. In: The birds of North America (Poole A, Gill F, eds). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences, The American Ornithologist's Union; 1-24.
30. Nowicki S, Hasselquist D, Bensch S, Peters S, 2000. Nestling growth and song repertoire size in great reed warblers: evidence for song learning as an indicator mechanism in mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2419-2424.
31. Nowicki S, Peters S, Podos J, 1998. Song learning, early nutrition and sexual selection in songbirds. Am Zool 38:179-190.
32. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Hughes M, Podos J, 2001. Motor performance and the evolution of birds song: male and female response to song innovation in swamp sparrows. Anim Behav 62:1189-1195.
33. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Peters S, 2002. Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the "nutritional stress hypothesis." J Comp Physiol A 188: 1003-1014
34. Nowicki S, Westneat M, Hoese W, 1992. Birdsong: motor function and the evolution of communication. Sem Neurosci 4:385-390.
35. Oberweger K, Goller F, 2001. The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J Exp Biol 204:3379-3388.
36. PodosJ, 1996. Motor constraints on vocal development in a songbird. Anim Behav 51:1061-1070.
37. Podos J, 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution 51:537-551.
38. Podos J, 2001. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signals in Darwin's finches. Nature 409:185-188.
39. PodosJ, Nowicki S, 2003. Performance limits on birdsong production. In: Nature's musicians: the science of birdsong (Marler P, Slabbekoorn H, eds) (in press).
40. Radesäter T, Jakobsson S, 1989. Song rate correlations of replacement territorial willow warblers Phylloscopus trochilus. Ornis Scand 20: 71-73.
41. Searcy WA, 1992. Measuring responses of female birds to male song. In: Playback and studies of animal communication (McGregor PK, ed). New York: Plenum Press; 175-189.
42. Searcy WA, Andersson M, 1986. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:507-533.
43. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K, 1996. Song and female choice. In: Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds (Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; 454-473.
44. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ, 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
45. Suthers RA, Goller F, 1997. Motor correlates of vocal diversity in songbirds. In: Current ornithology (Nolan J, ed). New York: Plenum Press; 235-288.
46. Vallet E, Beme I, Kreutzer M, 1998. Two-note syllables in canary songs elicit high levels of sexual display. Anim Behav 55:291-297.
47. Vallet E, Kreutzer M, 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav 49:1603-1610.
48. Westneat MW, Long JH Jr, Hoese W, Nowicki S, 1993. Kinematics of birdsong: functional correlations of cranial movements and acoustic features in sparrows. J Exp Biol 182:147-171.
49. West MJ, King AP, Eastzer DH, 1981. Validating the female bioassay of cowbird song: relating differences in song potency to mating success. Anim Behav 29:490-501.