Responses of male tropical mockingbirds (Mimus gilvus) to variation in within-song and between-song versatility

Auk

Volumn 124, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 185-196

  Botero, Carlos A ^a   Vehrencamp, Sandra L ^a  

^a Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program   (United States)

Author keywords

Mimus gilvus; Song complexity; Survival analysis; Switching rate; Tropical mockingbird; Versatility

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; SONG; SONGBIRD; STATISTICAL APPLICATION; SURVIVAL; VOCALIZATION;

MIMUS; MIMUS GILVUS;

EID: 33846849444     PISSN: 00048038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1642/0004-8038(2007)124[185:ROMTMM]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. BERGLUND, A., A. BISAZZA, AND A. PILASTRO. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 58:385-399.
2. BIEDENWEG, D. W. 1983. Time and energy budgets of the mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) during the breeding season. Auk 100:149-160.
3. BREWER, D. 2001. Wrens, Dippers and Thrashers. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
4. BUCHANAN, K. L., AND C. K. CATCHPOLE. 1997. Female choice in the Sedge Warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: Multiple cues from song and territory quality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 264:521-526.
5. BURNETT, L. J. 1978. Mockingbird song (Mimus polyglottos): An investigation within and across seasons. M.S. thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
6. CATCHPOLE, C. K., J. DITTAMI, AND B. LEISLER. 1984. Differential responses to male song repertoires in female songbirds implanted with estradiol. Nature 312:563-564.
7. CATCHPOLE, C. K., AND P. J. B. SLATER. 1995. Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
8. COLLINS, S. A. 1999. Is female preference for male repertoires due to sensory bias? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 266:2309-2314.
9. COLLINS, S. A. 2004. Vocal fighting and flirting: The functions of birdsong. Pages 39-79 in Nature's Music: The Science of Birdsong (P. Marler and H. Slabbekoorn, Eds.). Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California.
10. D'AGINCOURT, L. G., AND J. B. FALLS. 1983. Variation of repertoire use in the Eastern Meadowlark, Sturnella magna. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:1086-1093.
11. DERRICKSON, K. C. 1987. Yearly and situational changes in the estimate of repertoire size in Northern Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos). Auk 104:198-207.
12. DERRICKSON, K. C. 1988. Variation in repertoire presentation in Northern Mockingbirds. Condor 90:592-606.
13. DERRICKSON, K. C. 1989. Bigamy in Northern Mockingbirds: Circumventing female-female aggression. Condor 91:728-732.
14. DERRICKSON, K. C., AND R. BREITWISCH. 1992. Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). In The birds of North America, no. 7 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
15. DIXON, K. L. 1969. Patterns of singing in a population of the Plain Titmouse. Condor 71:94-101.
16. FALLS, J. B., AND L. G. D'AGINCOURT. 1982. Why do meadowlarks switch song types? Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:3400-3408.
17. FALLS, J. B., AND J. R. KREBS. 1975. Sequence of songs in repertoires of Western Meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta). Canadian Journal of Zoology 53:1165-1178.
18. HOLDRIDGE, L. R. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa Rica.
19. HORN, A. G., AND J. B. FALLS. 1991. Song switching in mate attraction and territory defense by Western Meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta). Ethology 87:262-268.
20. HOWELL, S. N. G., AND S. WEBB. 1995. A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
21. KOKKO, H., AND L. J. MORRELL. 2005. Mate guarding, male attractiveness, and paternity under social monogamy. Behavioral Ecology 16:724-731.
22. KRAMER, H. G., R. E. LEMON, AND M. J. MORRIS. 1985. Song switching and agonistic stimulation in the Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia): Five tests. Animal Behaviour 33:135-149.
23. LAMBRECHTS, M., AND A. A. DHONDT. 1988. The anti-exhaustion hypothesis: A new hypothesis to explain song performance and song switching in the Great Tit. Animal Behaviour 36:327-334.
24. LANGMORE, N. E. 1997. Song switching in monandrous and polyandrous Dunnocks, Prunella modularis. Animal Behaviour 53:757-766.
25. LEIN, M. R. 1978. Song variation in a population of Chestnut-sided Warblers: Its nature and suggested significance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:1266-1283.
26. LEMON, R. E. 1968. The relation between organization and function of song in cardinals. Behaviour 32:158-178.
27. LOGAN, C. A. 1983. Reproductively dependent song cyclicity in mated male mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos). Auk 100:404-413.
28. LOGAN, C. A. 1991. Mate switching and mate choice in female Northern Mockingbirds: Facultative monogamy. Wilson Bulletin 103:277-281.
29. LOGAN, C. A. 1997. Mate re-assessment in an already-mated female Northern Mockingbird. Chat 61:108-112.
30. LOGAN, C. A., AND K. R. FULK. 1984. Differential responding to spring and fall song in mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos). Journal of Comparative Psychology 98:3-9.
31. MCGREGOR, P. K. 1992. Quantifying responses to playback: One, many, or composite multivariate measures? Pages 79-96 in Playback and Studies of Animal Communication (P. K. McGregor, Ed.). Plenum Press, New York.
32. MENNILL, D. J., L. M. RATCLIFFE, AND P. T. BOAG. 2002. Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds. Science 296:873.
33. MOLLES, L. E., AND S. L. VEHRENCAMP. 1999. Repertoire size, repertoire overlap, and singing modes in the Banded Wren (Thryothorus pleurostictus). Auk 116:677-689.
34. MORTON, E. S., B. J. M. STUTCHBURY, AND W. H. PIPER. 2004. Cooperative breeding in the Tropical Mockingbird (Mimus gilvus) in the Panama Canal Zone. Ornitologia Neotropical 15:417-421.
35. NIELSEN, B. M. B., AND S. L. VEHRENCAMP. 1995. Responses of Songs Sparrows to song-type matching via interactive playback. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 37:109-117.
36. OSBORNE, J. 2002. Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 8. [Online.] Available at pareonline.net/.
37. READ, A. F., AND D. M. WEARY. 1992. The evolution of bird song: Comparative analyses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 338:165-187.
38. RITCHISON, G. 1988. Song repertoires and the singing behavior of male Northern Cardinals. Wilson Bulletin 100:583-603.
39. SEARCY, W. A., S. NOWICKI, AND C. HOGAN. 2000. Song type variants and aggressive context. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48:358-363.
40. SEARCY, W. A., J. PODOS, S. PETERS, AND S. NOWICKI. 1995. Discrimination of song types and variants in Song Sparrows. Animal Behaviour 49:1219-1226.
41. SEARCY, W. A., AND K. YASUKAWA. 1990. Use of the song repertoire in intersexual and intrasexual contexts by male Red-winged Blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27:123-128.
42. TABACHNICK, B. G., AND L. S. FIDELL. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, Massachusetts.
43. VEHRENCAMP, S. L. 2000. Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. Pages 277-300 in Animal Signals: Signalling and Signal Design in Animal Communication (Y. Espmark, T. Amundsen, and G. Rosenqvist, Eds.). Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway.
44. WEST, M. J., A. P. KING, AND D. H. EASTZER. 1981. Validating the female bioassay of cowbird song: Relating differences in song potency to mating success. Animal Behaviour 29:490-501.
45. WESTNEAT, D. F., AND I. R. K. STEWART. 2003. Extra-pair paternity in birds: Causes, correlates, and conflict. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:365-396.
46. WILDENTHAL, J. L. 1965. Structure in primary song of the mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Auk 82:161-189.
47. WILEY, R. H., R. GODARD, AND A. D. THOMPSON, JR. 1994. Use of two singing modes by Hooded Warblers as adaptations for signalling. Behaviour 129:243-278.