Aggressive responses to broadband trills are related to subsequent pairing success in nightingales

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 635-641

  Schmidt, Rouven ^a,e   Kunc, Hansjoerg P ^a,f   Amrhein, Valentin ^b,c   Naguib, Marc ^a,d  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Research Station Petite Camargue Alsacienne   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY NIOO KNAW   (Netherlands)

^e MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

^f QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Birdsong; Luscinia megarhynchos; Male male interaction; Sexual selection; Song structure; Trill

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); MATE CHOICE; PASSERINE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING; SONG; VOCALIZATION;

LUSCINIA MEGARHYNCHOS; PASSERI;

EID: 45349090831     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn021     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Amrhein V, Korner P, Naguib M. 2002. Nocturnal and diurnal singing activity in the nightingale: correlations with mating status and breeding cycle. Anim Behav. 64:939-944.
2. Amrhein V, Kunc HP, Naguib M. 2004. Seasonal patterns of singing activity vary with time of day in the nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos). Auk. 121:110-117.
3. Ballentine B, Hyman J, Nowicki S. 2004. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behav Ecol. 15:163-168.
4. Brumm H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol. 73:434-440.
5. Burt JM, Campbell SE, Beecher MD. 2001. Song type matching as threat: a test using interactive playback. Anim Behav. 62:1163-1170.
6. Catchpole CK, Leisler B. 1996. Female aquatic warblers (Acrocephalus paludicola) are attracted by playback of longer and more complicated songs. Behaviour. 133:1153-1164.
7. Dabelsteen T, McGregor PK, Shepherd M, Whittaker X, Pedersen SB. 1996. Is the signal value of overlapping different from that of alternating during matched singing in great tits? J Avian Biol. 27:189-194.
8. Draganoiu TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2002. Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:2525-2531.
9. Gil D, Gahr M. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:133-141.
10. Grüll A. 1981. Untersuchungen über das Revier der Nachtigall. J Ornithol. 122:259-285.
11. Hartley RS, Suthers RA. 1990. Lateralization of syringeal function during song production in the canary. J Neurobiol. 21:1236-1248.
12. Hasselquist D, Bensch S, von Tschanz T. 1996. Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature. 381:229-232.
13. 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.
14. Hyman J. 2003. Countersinging as a signal of aggression in a territorial songbird. Anim Behav. 65:1179-1185.
15. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 273:1907-1912.
16. Krebs J, Ashcroft R, Webber M. 1978. Song repertoires and territory defence in great tit. Nature. 271:539-542.
17. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2005. Acoustic features of song categories and their possible implications for communication in the common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos). Behaviour. 142:1083-1097.
18. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2006. Vocal interactions in nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos): more aggressive males have higher pairing success. Anim Behav. 72:25-30.
19. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2007. Vocal interactions in common nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos): males take it easy after pairing. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:557-563.
20. Lambrechts M, Dhondt AA. 1986. Male quality, reproduction, and survival in the great tit (Parus major). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:57-63.
21. Lampe HM, Epsmark YO. 1994. Song structure reflects male quality in pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav. 47:869-876.
22. Langemann U, Tavares JP, Peake TM, McGregor PK. 2000. Response of great tits to escalating patterns of playback. Behaviour. 137:451-471.
23. Leitao A, Riebel K. 2003. Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav. 66:161-167.
24. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T, Shepherd M, Pedersen SB. 1992. The signal value of matched singing in great tits - evidence from interactive playback experiments. Anim Behav. 43:987-998.
25. McGregor PK, Horn AG. 1992. Strophe length and response to playback in great tits. Anim Behav. 43:667-676.
26. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM. 2004. Overlapping and matching in the song contests of black-capped chickadees. Anim Behav. 67:441-450.
27. Mountjoy DJ, Lemon RE. 1991. Song as an attractant for male and female European starlings, and the influence of song complexity on their response. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 28:97-100.
28. Naguib M. 1999. Effects of song overlapping and alternating on nocturnally singing nightingales. Anim Behav. 58:1061-1067.
29. Naguib M. 2003. Reverberation of rapid and slow trills: implications for signal adaptations to long-range communication. J Acoust Soc Am. 113:1749-1756.
30. Naguib M. 2005. Singing interactions in songbirds: implications for social relations, territoriality and territorial settlement. In: McGregor PK, editor. Animal communication networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 300-319.
31. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PL, Dabelsteen T. 2002. Do great tits assess rivals by combining direct experience with information gathered by eavesdropping? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:1925-1929.
32. Podos J. 1996. Motor constraints on vocal development in a songbird. Anim Behav. 51:1061-1070.
33. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes:Emberizidae). Evolution. 51:537-551.
34. Podos J, Nowicki S. 2005. Performance limits on birdsong. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H, editors. Nature's music - the science of birdsong. London: Elsevier Academic Press. p. 318-342.
35. Schmidt R, Amrhein V, Kunc HP, Naguib M. 2007. The day after: effects of vocal interactions on territory defence in nightingales. J Anim Ecol. 76:168-173.
36. Schmidt R, Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2006. Responses to interactive playback predict future pairing success in the nightingale. Anim Behav. 72:1355-1362.
37. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2005. The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
38. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C. 1997. Stronger territorial responses to frequency modulated coos in collared doves. Anim Behav. 54:955-965.
39. 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 Study Behav. 31:31-75.
40. Todt D, Naguib M. 2000. Vocal interactions in birds: the use of song as a model in communication. Adv Study Behav. 29:247-296.
41. Vallet E, Kreutzer M. 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav. 49:1603-1610.
42. Vehrencamp SL. 2001. Is song-type matching a conventional signal of aggressive intentions? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:1637-1642.
43. Westneat MW, Long JH, Hoese W, Nowicki S. 1993. Kinematics of birdsong - functional correlation of cranial movements and acoustic features in sparrows. J Exp Biol. 182:147-171.
44. Wiley RH, Richards DG. 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. Acoustic communication in birds. New York: Academic Press. p. 131-181.
45. Yasukawa K. 1981. Song repertoires in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenicus) - a test of the beau-geste hypothesis. Anim Behav. 29:114-125.