Constrained performance in a communication network: Implications for the function of song-type matching and for the evolution of multiple ornaments

American Naturalist

Volumn 172, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 34-41

  Logue, David M ^a   Forstmeier, Wolfgang ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Alignable differences; Birdsong; Comparison; Performance constraints; Ritualization; Song learning

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE RADIATION; AGGRESSION; COMMUNICATION NETWORK; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LEARNING; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING; SONG; SONGBIRD;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; VOCALIZATION;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BIRDS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

PASSERI;

EID: 46349102921     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/587849     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ballentine, B., J. Hyman, and S. Nowicki. 2004. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behavioral Ecology 15:163-168.
2. Beecher, M. D., and E. A. Brenowitz. 2005. Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:143-149.
3. Beecher, M. D., S. E. Campbell, J. M. Burt, C. E. Hill, and J. C. Nordby. 2000. Song-type matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Animal Behaviour 59:21-27.
4. Brémond, J.-C. 1968. Recherches sur la sémantique et les element vecteurs d'information dans les signaux acoustiques du rougegorge (Erithacus rubecula). La Terre et la Vie 2:109-220.
5. Burt, J. M., S. E. Campbell, and M. D. Beecher. 2001. Song type matching as threat: a test using interactive playback. Animal Behaviour 62:1163-1170.
6. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 78:575-595.
7. Catchpole, C. K. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of song and brain structure in Acrocephalus warblers. Advances in the Study of Behavior 29:45-97.
8. Collins, S. A. 1999. Is female preference for male repertoires due to sensory bias? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:2309-2314.
9. Cramer, E. R. A., and J. J. Price. 2007. Red-winged blackbirds Ageliaus phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels. Journal of Avian Biology 38:122-127.
10. Davies, N. B., and T. R. Halliday. 1978. Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads, Bufo bufo. Nature 274:683-685.
11. Drǎgǎnoiu, T. I., L. Nagle, and M. Kreutzer. 2002. Directional female preferences for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:2525-2531.
12. Forstmeier, W., and T. J. S. Balsby. 2002. Why mated dusky warblers sing so much: territory guarding and male quality announcement. Behaviour 139:89-111.
13. Forstmeier, W., B. Kempenaers, A. Meyer, and B. Leisler. 2002. A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:1479-1485.
14. Forstmeier, W., B. Leisler, S. Bensch, and D. Hasselquist. 2006. Does song reflect age and viability? a comparison between two populations of the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59:634-643.
15. Gentner, D., and A. B. Markman. 1994. Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychological Science 5:152-158.
16. Getty, T. 2006. Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:83-88.
17. Gil, D., and M. Gahr. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:133-141.
18. Hebets, E. A., and D. R. Papaj. 2005. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57:197-214.
19. Hoese, W. J., J. Podos, N. C. Boetticher, and S. Nowicki. 2000. Vocal tract function in birdsong production: experimental manipulation of beak movements. Journal of Experimental Biology 203:1845-1855.
20. Hyman, J. 2003. Countersinging as a signal of aggression in a territorial songbird. Animal Behaviour 65:1179-1185.
21. Illes, A. E., M. L. Hall, and S. L. Vehrencamp. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:1907-1912.
22. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853-867.
23. Johnstone, R. A. 1996. Multiple displays in animal communication: "backup signals" and "multiple messages." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 351:329-338.
24. Johnstone, R. A., and D. J. D. Earn. 1999. Imperfect female choice and male mating skew on leks of different sizes. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45:277-281.
25. Krebs, J. R., R. Ashcroft, and K. van Orsdol. 1981. Song matching in the great tit Parus major L. Animal Behaviour 29:918-923.
26. Leboucher, G., and K. Pallot. 2004. Is he all he says he is? intersexual eavesdropping in the domestic canary, Serinus canaria. Animal Behaviour 68:957-963.
27. Markman, A. B., and D. Gentner. 1993. Splitting the differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 32:517-535.
28. Maynard Smith, J., and D. Harper. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
29. McGregor, P. K. 1993. Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging, and eavesdropping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 340:237-244.
30. Mennill, D. J., L. M. Ratcliffe, and P. T. Boag. 2002. Female eavesdropping in male song contests in songbirds. Science 296:873.
31. Mennill, D. J., S. M. Doucet, R. Montgomerie, and L. M. Ratcliffe. 2003. The reproductive choices of eavesdropping female black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus. Naturwissenschaften 90:577-582.
32. Møller, A. P., and A. Pomiankowski. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32:167-176.
33. Morton, E. S. 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. American Naturalist 109:17-34.
34. Naguib, M., and D. Todt. 1997. Effects of dyadic vocal interactions on other conspecific receivers in nightingales. Animal Behaviour 54:1535-1543.
35. Naguib, M., C. Fichtel, and D. Todt. 1999. Nightingales respond more strongly to vocal leaders of simulated dyadic interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:537-542.
36. Nelson, D. A., P. Marler, and M. L. Morton. 1996. Overproduction in song development: an evolution correlate with migration. Animal Behaviour 51:1127-1140.
37. Otter, K., P. K. McGregor, A. M. R. Terry, F. R. L. Burford, T. M. Peake, and T. Dabelsteen. 1999. Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? a field study using interactive song playback. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:1305-1309.
38. Owens, I. P. F., and I. R. Hartley. 1991. "Trojan sparrows": evolutionary consequences of dishonest invasion for the badges-of-status model. American Naturalist 138:1187-1205.
39. Peake, T. M., A. M. R. Terry, P. K. McGregor, and T. Dabelsteen. 2001. Male great tits eavesdrop on simulated male-to-male vocal interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:1183-1187.
40. Peake, T. M., G. Matessi, P. K. McGregor, and T. Dabelsteen. 2005. Song type matching, song type switching and eavesdropping in male great tits. Animal Behaviour 69:1063-1068.
41. Podos, J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution 51:537-551.
42. Podos, J., and S. Nowicki. 2004. Performance limits on birdsong. Pages 318-342 in P. M. Marler and H. Slaabekoorn, eds. Nature's music. Elsevier, San Diego, CA.
43. Rowe, C. 1999. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Animal Behaviour 58:921-931.
44. Schluter, D., and T. Price. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 253:117-122.
45. Searcy, W. A., and S. Nowicki. 2005. The evolution of animal communication. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
46. Slovic, P., and D. MacPhillamy. 1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11:172-194.
47. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 59:S251-S278.
48. Vallet, E., and M. Kreutzer. 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Animal Behaviour 49:1603-1610.
49. Vallet, E., I. Beme, and M. Kreutzer. 1998. Two-note syllables in canary songs elicit high levels of sexual display. Animal Behaviour 55:291-297.
50. Vehrencamp, S. L. 2000. Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. Pages 277-300 in Y. Espmark, T. Admundsen, and G. Rosenqvist, eds. Signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.
51. _. 2001. Is song-type matching a conventional signal of aggressive intentions? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:1637-1642.
52. Wiley, R. H. 1994. Errors, exaggeration, and deception in animal communication. Pages 157-189 in L. Real, ed. Behavioral mechanisms in ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
53. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53:205-214.
54. _. 1980. Ritualization and the evolution of movement signals. Behaviour 72:77-81.
55. _. 1993. The fallacy of conventional signalling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 338:227-230.
56. Zhang, S., and A. B. Markman. 1998. Overcoming the early entrant advantage: the role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research 35:413-426.
57. Zhang, S., F. R. Kardes, and M. L. Cronley. 2002. Comparative advertising: effects of structural alignability on target brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12:303-311.