Does ambient noise affect growth and begging call structure in nestling birds?

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 502-507

  Leonard, Marty L ^a   Horn, Andrew G ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ambient noise; Begging calls; Call structure; Nestling birds; Parent offspring communication

Indexed keywords

AMBIENT NOISE; BEGGING BEHAVIOR; CALLING BEHAVIOR; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; GROWTH; MATE ATTRACTION; NESTLING; NOISE POLLUTION; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PASSERINE; POLLUTION EFFECT; POLLUTION EXPOSURE; TERRITORIALITY;

AVES; TACHYCINETA; TACHYCINETA BICOLOR;

EID: 45349100914     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm161     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Beecher IM, Beecher MD. 1983. Sibling recognition in bank swallows. Z Tierpsychol. 62:145-150.
2. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
3. Brown CR, Brown MB. 1995. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). In: Poole A, Gill F, editors. The birds of North America, No. 149. Philadelphia (PA): The Academy of Natural Sciences. Washington (DC): The American Ornithologists' Union.
4. Brumm H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol. 73:434-440.
5. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. 2005. Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Study Behav. 35:151-209.
6. Chang EF, Merzenich MM. 2003. Environmental noise retards auditory cortical development. Science. 300:498-502.
7. Chappell MA, Bachman GC. 2002. Energetic cost of begging behaviour. In: Wright J, Leonard ML, editors. The evolution of begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 143-162.
8. Charif RA, Mitchell S, Clark CW. 1995. Canary 1.2 user's manual. Ithaca (NY): Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.
9. Cynx J, Lewis R, Tavel B, Hanson T. 1998. Amplitude regulation of vocalizations in noise by a songbird, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav. 56:107-113.
10. Dooling RJ, Gephart BR, Price PH, McHale C, Brauth SE. 1987. Effects of deafening on the contact call of the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus). Anim Behav. 35:1264-1266.
11. Dubois A, Martens J. 1984. A case of possible vocal convergence between frogs and a bird in Himalayan torrents. J Ornithol. 125:455-463.
12. Eda-Fujiwara H, Watanabe A, Okumura H. 1995. Effects of deafening on the temporal pattern of vocalizations in the budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus. J Ethol. 13:145-152.
13. Heaton JT, Brauth SE. 1999. Effects of deafening on the development of nestling and juvenile vocalizations in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Psychol. 113:314-320.
14. Lambrechts MM. 1996. Organization of birdsong and constraints on performance. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p. 305-320.
15. Lengagne T, Aubin T, Lauga J, Jouventin P. 1999. How do king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) apply the mathematical theory of information to communicate in windy conditions. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1623-1628.
16. Leonard ML, Horn AG. 1996. Provisioning rules in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:341-347.
17. Leonard ML, Horn AG. 2005. Ambient noise and the design of begging signals. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 272:651-656.
18. Leonard ML, Horn AG. 2007. Age-related changes in signalling of need by nestlingtree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ethology. 112:1020-1026.
19. Leonard ML, Horn AG, Brown CR, Fernandez N. 1997. Parent-offspring recognition in tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Anim Behav. 54:1107-1116.
20. Lohr B, Wright TF, Dooling RJ. 2003. Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: estimating the active space of a signal. Anim Behav. 65:763-777.
21. Marler P, Waser MS. 1977. Role of auditory feedback in canary song development. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 91:8-16.
22. McCarty JP. 2001. Variation in growth of nestling tree swallows across multiple temporal and spatial scales. Auk. 118:176-190.
23. Medvin MB, Stoddard PK, Beecher MD. 1993. Signals for parent-offspring recognition: a comparative information analysis of the calls of cliff swallows and barn swallows. Anim Behav. 45:841-850.
24. Patricelli GL, Blickley JL. 2006. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk. 123:639-650.
25. Penna M, Pottstock H, Velasquez N. 2005. Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Anim Behav. 70:639-651.
26. Philbin MK, Ballweg DD, Gray L. 1993. The effect of an intensive care unit sound environment on the development of habituation in healthy avian neonates. Dev Psychobiol. 27:11-21.
27. Rabin LA, Greene CM. 2002. Changes to acoustic communication systems in human altered environments. J Comp Psychol. 116:137-141.
28. SAS Institute Inc. 2005. JMP statistics and graphics guide, version 5.1. Cary (NC): SAS Institute.
29. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M. 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature. 424:267-268.
30. Warren P, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A. 2006. Urban bioacoustics - it's not just noise. Anim Behav. 71:491-502.
31. Watanabe A, Eda-Fujiwara H, Kimura T. 2007. Auditory feedback is necessary for long-term maintenance of high-frequency sound syllables in the song of adult male budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Physiol A. 193:81-97.
32. Wood WE, Yezerinac SW. 2006. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk. 123:650-659.
33. Woolley SMN, Rubel EW. 2002. Vocal memory and learning in adult Bengalese finches with regenerated hair cells. J Neurosci. 22:7774-7787.
34. Zevin JD, Seidenberg MS, Bottjer SW. 2004. Limits on reacquisition of song in adult zebra finches exposed to white noise. J Neurosci. 24:5849-5862.