The ecology of vocal signaling: Male spacing and communication distance of different song traits in nightingales

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1034-1040

  Naguib, Marc ^a,b   Schmidt, Rouven ^b,c   Sprau, Philipp ^a,b   Roth, Tobias ^d,e   Flörcke, Cornelia ^b   Amrhein, Valentin ^d,e  

^a NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY NIOO KNAW   (Netherlands)

^b BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

^d Research Station Petite Camargue Alsacienne   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bird song; Environmental acoustics; GPS; Sound transmission; Territorial settlement

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; BIRD; SIGNALING; SONG; SPACING; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS;

AVES; LUSCINIA MEGARHYNCHOS;

EID: 51749093118     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn065     Document Type: Article

References (43)

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. 2004a. Non-territorial nightingales prospect territories during the dawn chorus. Proc R Soc Lond B 271(Suppl):S167-S169.
3. Amrhein V, Kunc HP, Naguib M. 2004b. Seasonal patterns of singing activity vary with time of day in the nightingale. Auk. 121:110-117.
4. Anderson CA, Nowicki S, Searcy WA. 2007. Soft song in song sparrows: response of males and females to an enigmatic signal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1267-1274.
5. Ballentine B, Hyman J, Nowicki S. 2004. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behav Ecol. 15:163-168.
6. Brumm H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol. 73:434-440.
7. Brumm H, Todt D. 2002. Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Anim Behav. 63:891-897.
8. Chandler CR, Ketterson ED, Nolan V. 1997. Effects of testosterone on use of space by male dark-eyed juncos when their mates are fertile. Anim Behav. 54:543-549.
9. Dabelsteen T, Larsen ON, Pedersen SB. 1993. Habitat-induced degradation of sound signals - quantifying the effects of communication sounds and bird location on blur ratio, excess attenuation, and signal-to-noise ratio in blackbird song. J Acoust Soc Am. 93:2206-2220.
10. Dabelsteen T, McGregor P, Lampe HM, Langmore N, Holland J. 1998. Quiet song in song birds: an overlooked phenomenon. Bioacoustics. 9:89-105.
11. Endler JA. 1993. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B. 340:215-225.
12. Endler JA, Basolo AL. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol. 13:415-420.
13. Hanski IK. 1992. Territorial behaviour and mixed reproductive strategy in the chaffinch. Ornis Scand. 23:475-482.
14. 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.
15. Hultsch H, Todt D. 1996. Rules of parameter variation in homotype series of birdsong can indicate 'sollwert' significance. Behav Proc. 38:175-182.
16. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc Lond B. 273:1907-1912.
17. Kipper S, Mundry R, Sommer C, Hultsch H, Todt D. 2006. Song repertoire size is correlated with body measures and arrival date in common nightingales, Luscinia megarhynchos. Anim Behav. 71:211-217.
18. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mand R. 2007. Long-lasting mobbing of the pied flycatcher increases the risk of nest predation. Behav Ecol. 18:1082-1084.
19. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2005. Acoustic features of song categories of the nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) and its implications for communication. Behaviour. 142:1083-1097.
20. 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.
21. Marten K, Marler P. 1977. Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalizations. I. Temperate habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2:271-290.
22. Mathevon N, Aubin T, Dabelsteen T. 1996. Song degradation during propagation: importance of song post for the wren Troglodytes troglodytes. Ethology. 102:397-412.
23. Mathevon N, Aubin T, Vielliard J, da Silva M-L, Sebe F, Boscolo D. 2008. Singing in the rain forest: how a tropical bird song transfers information. PLoS ONE. 3(2):e1580.
24. Naguib M. 1995. Auditory distance assessment of singing conspecifics in Carolina wrens: the role of reverberation and frequency-dependent attenuation. Anim Behav. 50:1297-1307.
25. Naguib M. 1997. Use of song amplitude for ranging in Carolina wrens, Thryothorus ludovicianus. Ethology. 103:723-731.
26. Naguib M. 2003. Reverberation of rapid and slow trills: implications for signal adaptations to long range communication. J Acoust Soc Am. 133:1749-1756.
27. Naguib M, Altenkamp R, Grießmann B. 2001. Nightingales in space: song and extra-territorial forays of radio tagged song birds. J Ornithol. 142:306-312.
28. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP. 2004. Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol. 6:1011-1015.
29. Naguib M, Mundry R, Hultsch H, Todt D. 2002. Responses to playback of whistle songs and normal songs in male nightingales: effects of song category, whistle pitch, and distance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:216-223.
30. Naguib M, Wiley RH. 2001. Estimating the distance to a source of sound: mechanisms and adaptations for long-range communication. Anim Behav. 62:825-837.
31. Piercy JE, Embelton TFW, Sutherland LC. 1977. Review of noise propagation in the atmosphere. J Acoust Soc Am. 61:1403-1418.
32. Pitcher TE, Stutchbury BJM. 2000. Extraterritorial forays and male parental care in hooded warblers. Anim Behav. 59:1261-1269.
33. Podos J. 1996. Motor constraints on vocal development in a songbird. Anim Behav. 51:1061-1070.
34. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution. 51:537-551.
35. Richards DG. 1981. Alerting and message components in songs of rufous-sided towhees. Behaviour. 76:223-249.
36. Richards DG, Wiley RH. 1980. Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in a forest: implications for animal communications. Am Nat. 115:381-399.
37. Schmidt R, Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2006. Responses to interactive playback predict future mating status in nightingales. Anim Behav. 72:1355-1362.
38. Schmidt R, Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2008. Aggressive responses to broadband trills are related to subsequent pairing success in nightingales. Behav Ecol. 19:635-641.
39. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2005. The evolution of animal communication. Reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. Slabbekoorn H, Ellers J, Smith TB. 2002. Birdsong and sound transmission: the benefits of reverberations. Condor. 104:564-573.
41. Vallet E, Kreutzer M. 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav. 49:1603-1610.
42. Wiley RH, Richards DG. 1978. Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 3:69-94.
43. Wiley RH, Richards DG. 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Acoustic communication in birds, Vol. 2 (Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds). New York: Academic Press; 131-181.