Song diversification and complexity in canaries and seedeaters (Serinus spp.)

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 183-194

  Cardoso, Gonçalo C ^a,b   Mota, Paulo Gama ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

^b THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Birdsong; Evolutionary diversification; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION; PASSERINE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG; TRADE-OFF;

AVES; FRINGILLIDAE; SERINUS; SPOROPHILA;

EID: 34250660579     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00837.x     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arnaiz-Villena A, Álvarez-Tejado M, Ruíz-del-Valle V, García-de-la-Torre C, Varela P, Recio MJ, Ferre S, Martinez-Laso J. 1999. Rapid radiation of canaries (genus Serinus). Molecular Biology and Evolution 16 : 2 11.
2. Baker MC. 1996. Depauperate meme pool of vocal signals in an island population of singing honeyeaters. Animal Behaviour 51 : 853 858.
3. Bell BD, Borowiec M, Lontkowski J, Pledger S. 2004. Short records of marsh warbler (Acrocephalus palustris) song provide indices that correlate with nesting success. Journal of Ornithology 145 : 8 15.
4. Brackenbury JH. 1978. A comparison of the origin and temporal arrangement of pulsed sounds in the songs of the Grasshopper and Sedge warblers, Locustella naevia and Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. Journal of Zoology 184 : 187 206.
5. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer Associates.
6. van Buskirk J. 1997. Independent evolution of song structure and note structure in American wood warblers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 264 : 755 761.
7. Cheverud JM, Dow MM, Leutenegger W. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39 : 1335 1351.
8. Clement P, Harris A, Davies J. 1993. Finches and sparrows. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
9. Cuervo JJ, Møller AP. 1999. Evolutionary rates of secondary sexual and non-sexual characters among birds. Evololutionary Ecology 13 : 283 303.
10. DeVoogd TJ, Krebs JR, Healy SD, Purvis A. 1993. Relations between song repertoire size and the volume of brain nuclei related to song: comparative evolutionary analyses amongst oscine birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 254 : 75 85.
11. Drǎgǎnoiu TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2002. Directional female preference for an exagerated trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 269 : 2525 2531.
12. Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125 : 1 15.
13. Felsenstein J. 2000. PHYLIP (Phylogeny inference package), Version 3.6 (alpha). Distributed by the author. Seattle, WA : Department of Genetics, University of Washington.
14. Garamszegi LZ, Balsby TJS, Bell BD, Borowiec M, Byers BE, Drǎgǎnoiu T, Eens M, Forstmeier W, Galeotti P, Gil D, Gorissen L, Hansen P, Lampe HM, Leitner S, Lontkowski J, Nagle L, Nemeth E, Pinxten R, Rossi J, Saino N, Tanvez A, Titus R, Török J, Van Duyse E, Møller AP. 2005. Estimating the complexity of bird song by using capture-recapture approaches from community ecology. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57 : 305 317.
15. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP. 2004. Extrapair paternity and the evolution of bird song. Behavioral Ecology 15 : 508 519.
16. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP, Erritzøe J. 2003. The evolution of immune defense and song complexity in birds. Evolution 57 : 905 912.
17. Gardner TJ, Naef F, Nottebohm F. 2005. Freedom and rules: the acquisition and reprogramming of a bird's learned song. Science 308 : 1046 1049.
18. Gil D, Gahr M. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17 : 133 141.
19. Gil D, Leboucher G, Lacroix A, Cue R, Kreutzer M. 2004. Female canaries produce eggs with greater amounts of testosterone when exposed to preferred male song. Hormones and Behavior 45 : 64 70.
20. Gittleman JL, Anderson CG, Kot M, Luh H-K. 1996. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. In : Martins EP, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 166 205.
21. Gittleman JL, Kot M. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Systematic Zoology 39 : 227 241.
22. Griffith SC. 2000. High fidelity on islands: a comparative study of extrapair paternity in passerine birds. Behavioral Ecology 11 : 265 273.
23. Güttinger HR. 1985. Consequences of domestication on the song structures in the canary. Behaviour 94 : 254 278.
24. Hamao S, Ueda K. 2000. Simplified song in an island population of the bush warbler Cettia diphone. Journal of Ethology 18 : 35 57.
25. Irwin RE. 1990. Directional sexual selection cannot explain variation in song repertoire size in new world Blackbirds (Icterinae). Ethology 85 : 212 224.
26. Irwin RE. 1996. The phylogenetic content of avian courtship display and song evolution. In : Martins EP, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 234 252.
27. Irwin DE. 2000. Song variation in an avian ring species. Evolution 54 : 998 1010.
28. Jackson DA. 1993. Stopping rules in principal componentsanalysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74 : 2204 2214.
29. Kroodsma DE. 1982. Song repertoires: problems with their definition and use. In : Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds. Acoustic communication in birds, Vol. 2. New York, NY : Academic Press, 125 146.
30. Leboucher G, Depraz V, Kreutzer M, Nagle L. 1998. Male song stimulation of female reproduction in canaries: features relevant to sexual displays are not relevant to nest building or egg laying. Ethology 104 : 613 624.
31. Leitner S, Voigt C, Gahr M. 2001. Seasonal changes in the song pattern of the non-domesticated island canary (Serinus canaria), a field study. Behaviour 138 : 885 904.
32. Martins EP. 1999. COMPARE 4.4. Distributed by the author. Bloomington, IN : Indiana University, Department of Biology.
33. McCraken KG, Sheldon FH. 1997. Avian vocalizations and phylogenetic signal. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 : 3833 3836.
34. Milder SL, Schreiber RW. 1989. The vocalizations of the Christmas Island warbler, Acrocephalus aequinoctialis, an island endemic. Ibis 131 : 99 111.
35. Mota PG. 1999. The functions of song in the serin. Ethology 105 : 137 148.
36. Mota PG, Cardoso GC. 2001. Song organization and patterns of variation in the Serin (Serinus serinus). Acta Ethologica 3 : 141 150.
37. Mota PG, Depraz V. 2004. A test of the effect of male song on female nesting behaviour in the serin (Serinus serinus): a field playback experiment. Ethology 110 : 841 850.
38. Mundinger PC. 1995. Behaviour-genetic analysis of canary song: inter-strain differences in sensory learning, and epigenetic rules. Animal Behaviour 50 : 1491 1511.
39. Nottebohm F, Nottebohm ME, Crane L. 1986. Developmental and seasonal changes in canary song and their relation to changes in the anatomy of song-control nuclei. Behavioral and Neural Biology 46 : 445 471.
40. Omland KE, Lanyon SM. 2000. Reconstructing plumage evolution in orioles (Icterus): repeated convergence and reversal in patterns. Evolution 54 : 2119 2133.
41. Päckert M, Martens J, Kosuch J, Nazarenko AA, Veith M. 2003. Phylogenetic signal in the song of crests and kinglets (aves: Regulus). Evolution 57 : 616 629.
42. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution 51 : 537 551.
43. Podos J. 2001. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin's finches. Nature 409 : 185 188.
44. Price JJ, Lanyon SM. 2002. Reconstructing the evolution of complex bird song in the oropendolas. Evolution 56 : 1514 1529.
45. Price JJ, Lanyon SM. 2004. Patterns of song evolution and sexual selection in the oropendolas and caciques. Behavioral Ecology 15 : 485 497.
46. de Queiroz A, Wimberger PH. 1993. The usefulness of behavior for phylogeny estimation: levels of homoplasy in behavioral and morphological characters. Evolution 47 : 46 60.
47. Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA. 1985. The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. American Naturalist 126 : 87 100.
48. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2000. Male-male competition and female choice in the evolution of vocal signalling. In : Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G, eds. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Trondheim : Tapir Academic Press, 301 315.
49. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K. 1996. Song and female choice. In : Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press, 454 473.
50. Seddon N. 2005. Ecological adaptation and species recognition drives vocal evolution in neotropical suboscine birds. Evolution 59 : 200 215.
51. Specht R. 1999-2002. Avisoft-Saslab Pro: sound analysis and synthesis laboratory. Berlin : Avisoft.
52. Spencer KA, Buchanan KL, Leitner S, Goldsmith AR, Catchpole CK. 2005. Parasites affect song complexity and neural development in a songbird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 272 : 2037 2043.
53. Suthers RA, Goller F. 1997. Motor correlates of vocal diversity in songbirds. In : Nolan V Jr., Ketterson ED, Thompson CF, eds. Current ornithology, vol. 14. New York. NY : Plenum Press, 235 288.
54. Suthers RA, Vallet E, Tanvez A, Kreutzer M. 2004. Bilateral song production in domestic canaries. Journal of Neurobiology 60 : 381 393.
55. Thompson NS, LeDoux K, Moody K. 1994. A system for describing bird song units. Bioacoustics 5 : 267 279.
56. Tubaro PL, Mahler B. 1998. Acoustic frequencies and body mass in New World doves. Condor 100 : 54 61.
57. Vallet E, Beme I, Kreutzer M. 1998. Two-note syllables in canary songs elicit high levels of sexual display. Animal Behaviour 55 : 291 297.
58. Vallet E, Kreutzer M. 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Animimal Behaviour 49 : 1603 1610.
59. Vehrencamp SL. 2000. Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. In : Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G, eds. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Trondheim : Tapir Academic Press, 277 300.
60. Wallschläger D. 1980. Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia 36 : 412.
61. West-Eberhard MJ. 1989. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 20 : 249 278.
62. Wiens JJ. 2001. Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 : 517 523.
63. Wiley RH. 1991. Associations of song properties with habitats for territorial oscine birds of eastern North America. American Naturalist 138 : 973 993.
64. Zar JH. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.