The deterrent effect of bird song in territory defense

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 200-206

  De Kort, Selvino R ^a   Eldermire, Erin R B ^a   Cramer, Emily R A ^a   Vehrencamp, Sandra L ^a  

^a Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Playback; Sexual selection; Song; Territory defense

Indexed keywords

BIRD; DEFENSE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG;

AVES; THRYOTHORUS PLEUROSTICTUS;

EID: 58149263286     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn135     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Ballentine B, Hyman J, Nowicki S. 2004. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behav Ecol. 15:163-168.
3. Botero CA, Vehrencamp SL. 2007. Responses of male tropical mockingbirds (Mimus gilvus) to variation in within-song and between-song versatility. Auk. 124:185-196.
4. Brémond J-C. 1968. Récherches sur la sémantique et les elementes vecteurs d'information dans les signaux acoustiques du rouge-gorge (Erithacus rubecula). La Terre et Vie. 2:109-220.
5. Briffa M, Elwood RW. 2001. Motivational change during shell fights in the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus. Anim Behav. 62:505-510.
6. Byers BE. 2007. Extrapair paternity in chestnut-sided warblers is correlated with consistent vocal performance. Behav Ecol. 18:130-136.
7. Cardoso GC, Atwell JW, Ketterson ED, Price TD. 2007. Inferring performance in the songs of dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol. 18:1051-1057.
8. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB. 1995. Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Collins SA. 2004. Vocal fighting and flirting: the functions of birdsong. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H, editors. Nature's music: the science of birdsong. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. p. 39-79.
10. Cramer ERA, Price JJ. 2007. Red-winged blackbirds Ageliaus phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels. J Avian Biol. 38:122-127.
11. Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB. 1985. Correspondence between messages in the full song of the blackbird Turdus merula and meanings to territorial males, as inferred from responses to computerized modifications of natural song. Z Tierpsychol. 69:149-165.
12. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
13. Dooling RJ, Lohr B, Dent ML. 2000. Hearing in birds and reptiles. In: Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Comparative hearing: birds and reptiles. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 308-359.
14. Drãgãnoiu 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.
15. Elias DO, Mason AC, Maddison WP, Hoy RR. 2005. Seismic signals in a courting male jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). J Exp Biol. 206:4029-4039.
16. Enquist M. 1985. Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice behaviour. Anim Behav. 33:1152-1161.
17. Enquist M, Leimar O. 1983. Evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J Theor Biol. 127:387-410.
18. Gil D, Gahr M. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:133-141.
19. Hardouin LA, Reby D, Bavoux C, Burneleau G, Bretagnolle V. 2007. Communication of quality in owl hoots. Am Nat. 169:552-562.
20. Hartley RS, Suthers RA. 1990. Lateralization of syringeal function during song production in the canary. J Neurobiol. 21:1236-1248.
21. 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.
22. Järvi T, Radesäter T, Jacobsen S. 1980. The song of the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus with special reference to singing behaviour in agonistic situations. Ornis Scand. 11:236-242.
23. Krebs JR, Ashcroft R, Van Orsdol K. 1980. Song matching in the great tit Parus major L. Anim Behav. 29:918-923.
24. Leimar O, Enquist M. 1984. Effects of asymmetries in owner-intruder conflicts. J Theor Biol. 111:475-491.
25. Leitão A, Riebel K. 2003. Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav. 66:161-167.
26. Maier EH, Klump GM. 1990. Auditory duration discrimination in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Acoust Soc Am. 88:616-621.
27. Mann NI, Barker FK, Graves JA, Dingess-Mann KA, Slater PJB. 2006. Molecular data delineate four genera of "Thryoterus" wrens. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 40:750-759.
28. Martins EP. 1993. Contextual use of the push-up display by the Sagebrush Lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Anim Behav. 45:25-36.
29. McGregor PK. 1992. Quantifying responses to playback: one, many, or composite multivariate measures? In: McGregor PK, editor. Playback and studies of animal communication. New York: Plenum Press. p. 79-96.
30. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM, Boag PT. 2002. Female eavesdropping on male contests in songbirds. Science. 296:873.
31. Molles LE, Vehrencamp SL. 1999. Repertoire size, repertoire overlap, and singing modes in the banded wren (Thryothorus pleurostictus). Auk. 116:677-689.
32. Molles LE, Vehrencamp SL. 2001a. Neighbour recognition by resident males in the banded wren, Thryothorus pleurostictus, a tropical songbird with high song type sharing. Anim Behav. 61:119-127.
33. Molles LE, Vehrencamp SL. 2001b. Songbird cheaters pay a retaliation cost: evidence for auditory conventional signals. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:2013-2019.
34. Nelson DA. 1988. Feature weighting in species song recognition by the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Behaviour. 106:158-182.
35. Norušis MJ. 2004. SPSS 13.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.
36. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Krueger T, Hughes M. 2002. Individual variation in response to simulated territorial challenges among territory-holding song sparrows. J Avian Biol. 33:253-259.
37. Osiejuk TS, Losak K, Dale S. 2007. Cautious response of inexperienced birds to conventional signal of stronger threat. J Avian Biol. 38:644-649.
38. Parker GA. 1974. Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol. 47:223-243.
39. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution. 51:537-551.
40. Rice WR. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical test. Evolution. 43:223-225.
41. Schmidt R, Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2006. Responses to interactive playback predict future pairing success in nightingales. Anim Behav. 72:1355-1362.
42. 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.
43. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2000. Male-male competition and female choice in the evolution of vocal signalling. In: Espmark Y, Rosenqvist G, editors. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Trondheim (Norway): Tapir Academic Press. p. 301-315.
44. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2005. The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signalling systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
45. Slabbekoorn H, ten Cate C. 1997. Stronger territorial responses to frequency modulated coos in collared doves. Anim Behav. 54:955-965.
46. Slabbekoorn H, Ten Cate C. 1998. Perceptual tuning to frequency characteristics of territorial signals in collared doves. Anim Behav. 56:847-857.
47. Sokal RS, Rohlf FJ. 1998. Biometry. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
48. Thornhill R. 1984. Fighting and assessment in Harpobittacus scorpionflies. Evolution. 38:201-214.
49. Vehrencamp S. 2000. Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of birds song. In: Espmark Y, Rosenqvist G, editors. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Trondheim (Norway): Tapir Academic Press. p. 277-300.
50. Vehrencamp SL. 2001. Is song-type matching a conventional signal of aggressive intentions? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:1637-1642.
51. Vehrencamp SL, Hall ML, Bohman ER, Depeine CD, Dalziell H. 2007. Song matching, overlapping, and switching in the banded wren: the sender's perspective. Behav Ecol. 18:849-859.
52. Verbeek MEM, Boon A, Drent PJ. 1996. Exploration, aggressive behavior and dominance in pair-wise confrontations of juvenile male great tits. Behaviour. 133:945-963.